From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stripling v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Dec 15, 1995
664 So. 2d 2 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

Summary

finding court's rulings restricting defendant's voir dire not preserved where defendant affirmatively accepted the jury upon selection of the twelfth juror and did not renew his objection prior to jury being sworn

Summary of this case from Hillsman v. State

Opinion

No. 94-341.

February 15, 1995. As Amended December 15, 1995. Motion for Rehearing, Rehearing En Banc, or Certification Withdrawn.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, Thomas M. Carney and Fredricka G. Smith, JJ.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Christina A. Spaulding, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Richard L. Polin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before JORGENSON, COPE and GODERICH, JJ.


Angelo Stripling appeals his convictions for first degree murder, armed robbery, and shooting a deadly missile into a vehicle. We affirm.

Defendant claims error in certain trial court rulings during voir dire which defendant contends unduly restricted his voir dire inquiry. We conclude that this claim is not preserved for appellate review. As we view the record, defendant affirmatively accepted the jury upon the selection of the twelfth juror. Defendant did not renew his objection at that time or at any time prior to the swearing of the jury. See Joiner v. State, 618 So.2d 174, 176 (Fla. 1993); Brown v. State, 613 So.2d 558, 559 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); cf. Springer v. State, 513 So.2d 736, 737 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (in analogous circumstances, objection waived when not timely made).

As to the second point on appeal, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's conclusion that the proffered statements were not statements against penal interest. See § 90.804(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (1993); Williamson v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 114 S.Ct. 2431, 2435, 129 L.Ed.2d 476 (1994).

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Stripling v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Dec 15, 1995
664 So. 2d 2 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

finding court's rulings restricting defendant's voir dire not preserved where defendant affirmatively accepted the jury upon selection of the twelfth juror and did not renew his objection prior to jury being sworn

Summary of this case from Hillsman v. State

rejecting claim of undue restriction on voir dire where error was unpreserved, as counsel "affirmatively accepted the jury ... did not renew his objection at that time or at any time prior to the swearing of the jury"

Summary of this case from Rivers v. Gancedo Lumber Co.
Case details for

Stripling v. State

Case Details

Full title:ANGELO STRIPLING, APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Dec 15, 1995

Citations

664 So. 2d 2 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

Citing Cases

WALLACE v. HOLIDAY ISLE RES./MAR

The law has been clearly established in criminal proceedings that all objections or claims of error during…

Stripling v. State

Stripling was also found guilty of armed robbery for which he received a consecutive life sentence with a…