Wykle v. State, 94-1042
| Decision Date | 01 September 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-1042,94-1042 |
| Citation | 659 So.2d 1287 |
| Parties | 20 Fla. L. Weekly D2009 Buddy Ray WYKLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Russell E. Crawford, Orlando, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Steven J. Guardiano, Sr. Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for appellee.
Buddy Ray Wykle was charged by an amended information with 10 counts of sexual acts committed upon L.C., a child under the age of 12. Wykle was tried by a jury and convicted of eight counts; the trial court entered judgments of acquittal as to two counts. On appeal from his convictions, Wykle contends: 1) that the trial court improperly admitted L.C.'s hearsay statements about the sexual acts; 2) that the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to rule on Wykle's motion to suppress evidence; and 3) that the trial court erred when it denied Wykle's motion for a judgment of acquittal as to count I of the amended information. We affirm Wykle's convictions.
Prior to trial, the state served notice that it sought to introduce L.C.'s hearsay statements pursuant to section 90.803(23), Florida Statutes (1991). An in limine hearing was held where L.C.'s mother and two officers who investigated the crimes against L.C. testified to L.C.'s statements about the acts Wykle committed against her. L.C. also testified to the dates and the acts Wykle committed against her. Wykle's attorney never objected to the state's assertions regarding the consistency and reliability of these statements. The trial court ruled that the witnesses' hearsay testimony was admissible, finding that the statements met the requirements of the statute that the "time, content, and circumstances of the statement[s] provide sufficient safeguards of reliability." See Sec. 90.803(23)(a)(1), Fla.Stat. (1991). The trial court further found that L.C. was available and subject to cross-examination and, therefore, that any inconsistencies between the hearsay statements and L.C.'s testimony could be addressed at trial. See Belcher v. State, 646 So.2d 231 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); see also Pardo v. State, 596 So.2d 665 (Fla.1992); Sec. 90.801, Fla.Stat. (1991).
Wykle first contends that the trial court erred in admitting L.C.'s hearsay statements because the state failed to demonstrate the reliability of the statements and, further, because the trial court failed to make the findings required by section 90.803(23)(c). The general rule is that an appellate court will not consider an issue unless a contemporaneous objection to the alleged error was raised below or unless the error was fundamental. Washington v. State, 510 So.2d 355 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Here, Wykle failed to raise a contemporaneous objection below based on these arguments, and the alleged error is not fundamental. See State v. Townsend, 635 So.2d 949 (Fla.1994). Accordingly, Wykle failed to preserve for appellate review the issue of the admissibility of L.C.'s hearsay statements. 1
Wykle's second argument is that the trial court erred when it failed to rule on his motion to suppress evidence seized from his home. The police obtained a search warrant for Wykle's home and recovered clothing, a photograph of Wykle's bedroom, and a videotape box which were consistent with L.C.'s testimony. A careful reading of the record on appeal reveals that Wykle never made a motion to suppress or requested a suppression hearing before or during trial. When the state sought to introduce the evidence at trial, Wykle's attorney objected on the ground that a valid search had not been established. After determining that Wykle's attorney had not filed a pre-trial motion to suppress, the trial court offered him the opportunity to voir dire the officer. Wykle's attorney stated that he instead would cover the issue on cross-examination. Wykle's attorney cross-examined the officer at length about the search. After completing his cross-examination, however, Wykle's attorney never moved to suppress the evidence, nor did he renew his objection to the admission of the evidence. Inasmuch as Wykle failed to file a pre-trial motion to suppress or to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gaines, SC95738.
...in order to preserve the issue for appellate review. See Green v. State, 711 So.2d 69, 70 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Wykle v. State, 659 So.2d 1287, 1289 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). This principle is in recognition of the possibility that the trial court might change its prior ruling based on the testim......
-
Maness v. State, 98-2179.
...see also Anderson v. State, 655 So.2d 1118, 1119 (Fla.1995); Hopkins v. State, 632 So.2d 1372, 1376 (Fla.1994); Wykle v. State, 659 So.2d 1287, 1288-89 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). ALLEN, LAWRENCE, and BENTON, JJ., ...
-
Rodriguez v. State, 1D12–2596.
...under section 90.803(23), Florida Statutes (2010). Elwell v. State, 954 So.2d 104, 106 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Wykle v. State, 659 So.2d 1287, 1288–89 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); see also McCloud v. State, 91 So.3d 940 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). Appellant asserts he could not object to the lack of findings ......
-
Wilder v. State, 97-3034
...Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Tingley v. State, 549 So.2d 649 (Fla.1989); Wykle v. State, 659 So.2d 1287 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). GRIFFIN, C.J., DAUKSCH, J., and ORFINGER, M., Senior Judge, ...