¶1Appellant argues that the trial court erroneously excluded certain testimony upon the state’s hearsay objection. By not raising in the trial court those arguments for admissibility now raised on appeal, appellant failed to preserve his contention that the excluded statements were non-hearsay or that they fell within some exception to the hearsay rule. See Tillman v. State, 471 So.2d 32, 35 (Fla.1985); Guittierez v. State, 704 So.2d 161 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (Gross, J., concurring).
727 So. 2d 270
Carabella v. State
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Decided February 3, 1999
District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1999-02-03
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently November 2018
3 state decisions
Key passage — most relied on by later courts
“Appellant argues that the trial court erroneously excluded certain testimony upon the state's hearsay objection. By not raising in the trial court those arguments for admissibility now raised on appeal, appellant failed to preserve his contention that the excluded statements were non-hearsay or that they fell within some exception to the hearsay rule.”
quoted by 1 later decision, including 944 So. 2d 1043 - Hay v. Hay
Relies on 471 So. 2d 32 - Tillman v. State · 704 So. 2d 161 - Guittierez v. State
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1999-02-03
View the full empirical analysis of this case →