KING KNIGHT, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
King Knight appeals his sexual battery conviction, arguing the trial court erred by admitting the victim's testimony about seeking therapy and being unable to go out at night after the assault. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that Knight waived the argument by failing to object on unfair prejudice grounds at trial, and the evidence was not fundamental error.
The court held that Knight waived the unfair prejudice argument by failing to object on that specific ground at trial, and therefore the issue was not preserved for appeal. Even reviewing the admission of the testimony under harmless error analysis, the court found no fundamental error.
[1] An objection on relevance grounds alone does not preserve an argument of unfair prejudice for appeal.
[2] A defendant waives an argument of undue prejudice on appeal if they fail to object on those grounds at trial pursuant to section 90.403, Florida Statutes.
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“[A]n objection on relevance grounds only will not preserve an argument of unfair prejudice on appeal.”
Establishes the preservation requirement that specific unfair prejudice objections must be made at trial, not just general relevance objections.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKing Knight was convicted of sexual battery. At trial, the victim testified that after the rape and beating, she was scared, sought therapy, and could…
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 Preservation Of Error cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant King Knight raises one issue in this appeal from his conviction and sentence for sexual battery: the trial court erred by allowing the victim of Knight’s rape and beating to testify that she saw a therapist, and couldn’t go out at night, in the days and weeks after the attack. Knight contends that the probative value of this evidence was substantially outweighed by its unfair prejudice, and therefore was inadmissible under section 90.403 of the Florida Statutes.1 Because Knight did not object at trial to this part of the victim’s testimony on “prejudice” grounds,2 the issue was not preserved for appeal. See Datus v. State, 126 So.3d 363, 366 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (“[A]n objection on relevance grounds only will not preserve an argument of unfair prejudice on appeal.”); Andrews v. State, 82 So.3d 979, 982 n.2 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (“Appellant failed to object at trial on undue prejudice grounds pursuant to section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2008). As a result, he waived any possible undue prejudice argument on appeal.”); Reynolds v. State, 660 So.2d 778, 780 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (“By defense counsel’s simply objecting to testimony on the grounds that it is ‘cumulative,’ without more, the trial court is not alerted to the fact that the objection is based upon a contention that the probative value of the *1196otherwise admissible evidence is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.”) Because admitting the victim’s testimony that after the rape she went to a therapist and couldn’t go out at night was not fundamental error, we affirm. See Johnson v. State, 40 So.3d 883, 887 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (reviewing under harmless error analysis the erroneous admission of post-assault victim behavior).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Johnson v. State, 40 So. 3d 883 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Reynolds v. State, 660 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Megaleto Andrews v. State, 82 So. 3d 979 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Rodriguez v. State, 126 So. 3d 363 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)
- Luckenson Datus v. State, 126 So. 3d 363 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)