Crumbley v. State, 5D03-2326.

CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)
Writing for the CourtSAWAYA, C.J.
Citation876 So.2d 599
PartiesGerald Andrew CRUMBLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Docket NumberNo. 5D03-2326.,5D03-2326.
Decision Date04 June 2004

876 So.2d 599

Gerald Andrew CRUMBLEY, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee

No. 5D03-2326.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

June 4, 2004.


876 So.2d 600
C. Michael Barnette, Daytona Beach, for Appellant

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Pamela J. Koller, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

SAWAYA, C.J.

Gerald Crumbley appeals the judgment and sentence he received after the jury found him guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Crumbley contends that he was denied a fair trial and deprived of due process when his wife, the victim, testified regarding prior acts of violence committed by Crumbley in violation of an order in limine. We affirm.

A long history of acrimony and marital discord between Crumbley and his wife served as the catalyst for the quarrel between the two that culminated in Crumbley's arrest, conviction and imprisonment. As the argument escalated, the wife became terrified of the belligerent Crumbley. In her attempt to retreat from him, she became entrapped in a corner of the home where Crumbley, in the presence of their son, held a knife to her throat and threatened to kill her if she proceeded with plans to divorce him.

Prior to Crumbley's trial, the trial court entered an order in limine that precluded the wife from disclosing prior acts of violence committed against her by Crumbley. During the trial, however, the wife alluded to Crumbley's past conduct, but stopped short of revealing any details because she testified that she was precluded from doing so. Specifically, the wife testified as follows:

Well, Andy always goes through a period after he gets real angry where he'll start pacing, so that's what he was doing, he was pacing back and forth between the kitchen and the table. And I had at that time seated myself in the swivel chair at the computer, and I looked at my son, and he was looking at me, and I went, (indicating). And afterwards — Christopher waited a few minutes and then got up, told his dad — he grabbed the phone book, and his dad said what are you doing, he said I'm gonna call my friend Dillon, and then he proceeded to go back into our back bedroom.

The following testimony was in response to questions asked by Crumbley's attorney relating to the wife's involvement with another person and why the son did not come to her aid during the incident:

[Defense Counsel]: Your state of mind at the time ... was that you loved Andy or you didn't love Andy?
[Wife]: I can't — I'm limited to what I can tell you because I can't go — I can't go back to what happened previously to cause me to want the divorce.
...
He was going through one of his quiet periods, a time where he was being good. And I wanted the divorce because he was a violent man. He had threatened me in the past. He promised me —
...
My son is terrified of his father. See, there again I have to go back and explain some things that happened.

These revelations are the basis for Crumbley's argument that he was denied due process and a fair trial. The State asserts,

876 So.2d 601
despite the order granting the motion in limine, that Crumbley's failure to object to this testimony at trial waives his right to raise the issue on appeal

The courts have consistently held that in order to preserve an error for appellate review, an objection must be made when the error occurs. F.B. v. State, 852 So.2d 226 (Fla.2003). Commonly referred to as the contemporaneous objection rule, the rationale for its application is two-fold: 1) to require an objection at the time the error is committed to give the trial court the opportunity to correct it; and 2) to prevent a litigant from allowing an error to go unchallenged so it may be used as a tactical advantage later. Id. Numerous decisions hold that despite a motion in limine to exclude certain evidence, a contemporaneous objection must nevertheless be made at the time an attempt is made to introduce the evidence. The vast majority of decisions that have applied this rule have done so when the motion in limine was denied.1 The court in Coffee v. State, 699 So.2d 299 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), extended application of the contemporaneous objection rule to instances where the motion in limine was granted and then violated during the course of the trial. See also Jennings v. State, 744 So.2d 1126 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (finding that defense counsel's failure to offer a specific objection to evidence admitted after the court receded from a previously granted order in limine waived the issue for review). It is not necessary for us to decide whether to adopt the rationale of Coffee and require a contemporaneous objection after a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 practice notes
  • Salas v. State, No. 5D06-2994.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 14 Diciembre 2007
    ...Fundamental error is a term used by appellate courts where the error at trial is not preserved for appellate review. Crumbley v. State, 876 So.2d 599, 601, n. 2 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). In this case, the instructional error was preserved by timely objection. Thus, our review of that issue is to......
  • Jackson v. State, No. 5D07-1690.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 18 Abril 2008
    ...the overwhelming amount of evidence in support of the State's case. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986); Crumbley v. State, 876 So.2d 599, 602 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Chambers v. State, 692 So.2d 210, 212 (Fla. 5th DCA AFFIRMED. PLEUS and COHEN, JJ., concur. ...
  • Fountain v. State, Case No. 2D20-289
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 28 Abril 2021
    ...objection-for-objection's sake does not serve the purposes underlying the contemporaneous objection rule. See Crumbley v. State, 876 So. 2d 599, 601 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) ("[T]he rationale for ... application [of the contemporaneous objection rule] is two-fold: 1) to require an objection at t......
  • Fountain v. State, Case No. 2D20-289
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 28 Abril 2021
    ...objection-for-objection's sake does not serve the purposes underlying the contemporaneous objection rule. See Crumbley v. State, 876 So. 2d 599, 601 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) ("[T]he rationale for . . . application [of the contemporaneous objection rule] is two-fold: 1) to require an objection at......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
19 cases
  • Salas v. State, No. 5D06-2994.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 14 Diciembre 2007
    ...Fundamental error is a term used by appellate courts where the error at trial is not preserved for appellate review. Crumbley v. State, 876 So.2d 599, 601, n. 2 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). In this case, the instructional error was preserved by timely objection. Thus, our review of that issue is to......
  • Jackson v. State, No. 5D07-1690.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 18 Abril 2008
    ...the overwhelming amount of evidence in support of the State's case. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986); Crumbley v. State, 876 So.2d 599, 602 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Chambers v. State, 692 So.2d 210, 212 (Fla. 5th DCA AFFIRMED. PLEUS and COHEN, JJ., concur. ...
  • Fountain v. State, Case No. 2D20-289
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 28 Abril 2021
    ...objection-for-objection's sake does not serve the purposes underlying the contemporaneous objection rule. See Crumbley v. State, 876 So. 2d 599, 601 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) ("[T]he rationale for ... application [of the contemporaneous objection rule] is two-fold: 1) to require an objection at t......
  • Fountain v. State, Case No. 2D20-289
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 28 Abril 2021
    ...objection-for-objection's sake does not serve the purposes underlying the contemporaneous objection rule. See Crumbley v. State, 876 So. 2d 599, 601 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) ("[T]he rationale for . . . application [of the contemporaneous objection rule] is two-fold: 1) to require an objection at......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT