AARON TINSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Aaron Tinson appeals his conviction for sexual battery of a six-year-old child. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding no error in the trial court's admission of the child victim's hearsay statements under Florida's excited utterance exception and ruling that remaining issues were not properly preserved for appeal.
The admission of the child victim's hearsay statements under section 90.803(23), Florida Statutes was not error. The remaining two issues were not properly preserved for appeal because the defense failed to lodge appropriate objections and constitutional arguments below, precluding appellate review on those grounds.
[1] A trial court's admission of a child victim's hearsay statements pursuant to section 90.803(23), Florida Statutes (1989) is not error when the material allegations of the…
[2] An appellate court will not review an objection to expert testimony as vouching for the credibility of a victim when the record shows no objection was made on that ground…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The trial court's ruling admitting the child victim's hearsay statements pursuant to section 90.803(23), Florida Statutes (1989) was not error.”
Establishes the core holding that the admission of the child's hearsay statements was proper under the excited utterance exception.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTinson was convicted of sexual battery of a six-year-old child. The child victim's hearsay statements were admitted at trial pursuant to section 90.80…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Hearsay Exceptions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals his conviction for sexual battery of a six year old child.
The trial court’s ruling admitting the child victim’s hearsay statements pursuant to section 90.803(23), Florida Statutes (1989) was not error. The material allegations of the offense were proven by the child’s testimony which was supported by the testimony of others. Appellant’s remaining points, charging error in the admission of the expert testimony of a member of the Child Protection Team,1 and the refusal to permit testimony regarding an incident occurring between the child victim and her father, were not preserved below. As to the first issue, the record discloses the absence of an objection to the expert testimony on the ground that it amounted to vouching for the credibility of the victim, precluding review on that ground here. Glendening v. State, 536 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1988).
As to the second issue, the record discloses that trial counsel never asserted below a constitutional right of confrontation as a basis for his attempted cross-examination in regard to the alleged incident in question, and made no proffer of the evidence sought to be elicited.
Accordingly, no abuse of discretion has been shown in the trial court’s ruling that the collateral incident alluded to by counsel in his discussion and argument at trial was irrelevant to the issues before the jury.
AFFIRMED.
ERVIN, SMITH and ALLEN, JJ., concur. . The expert testimony in this case is not comparable to the testimony of the expert in Weatherford v. State, 561 So. 2d 629, 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) wherein the expert testified repeatedly as to her opinion of the truthfulness of the child victim.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Demars v. Vill. OF Sandalwood Lakes Homeowners Ass'n, Inc., 625 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…many times that proof of a few attempts at service of process are insufficient to prove diligent search. See e.g., Tulpere v. Duval Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 548 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Hobe Sound Indus. Park, Inc. v. First Union Nat’l Bank, 594 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Robinson v. Cornelius, 377 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). The problem in this case occurs as to whether a factually insufficient affidavit renders the judgment entered in reliance thereon absolutely void or merely voidable. It…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Glendening v. State, 536 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1988)
- Zonald Watson Weatherford v. State, 561 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)