Background
Dwayne Lee Lewis was convicted of attempted sexual battery without consent and appealed, raising four issues. On appeal, the court addressed only one: whether the trial court erred in admitting a recording of a custodial interview in which law enforcement repeatedly opined that Lewis was guilty of the charged offense.
Lewis had moved in limine before trial to exclude these law enforcement opinions, citing Martinez v. State, which holds that a witness’s opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused is not admissible. The trial court denied the motion. When the State later moved to introduce the recording at trial, Lewis’s counsel stated, “I don’t object.”
The Court’s Holding
The court affirmed Lewis’s conviction without reaching the merits of his evidence challenge. Because Lewis’s counsel failed to renew the pretrial objection at trial, the appellate argument was not preserved under Carr v. State, 156 So. 3d 1052 (Fla. 2015). The court was therefore bound to affirm, as Carr requires contemporaneous objection at trial to preserve error for appeal.
However, the court noted a significant tension: Florida Statute § 90.104(1) provides that “if the court has made a definitive ruling on the record admitting or excluding evidence, either at or before trial, a party need not renew an objection or offer of proof to preserve a claim of error for appeal.” By its plain language, the statute would not have required Lewis to renew his objection. The court acknowledged that Carr imposes a higher obligation on trial counsel than the statute requires, but found itself bound by Carr’s precedent.
The court affirmed the conviction without prejudice, allowing Lewis to pursue postconviction relief if available, and certified a question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court asking whether a defendant must renew objections at trial when a court has made a definitive pre-trial ruling excluding evidence.
Key Takeaways
- Law enforcement opinions about a defendant’s guilt are inadmissible evidence under Martinez v. State
- Under Carr v. State, a defendant must renew a pretrial objection at trial to preserve error for appeal, despite Florida Statute § 90.104(1) suggesting a definitive pre-trial ruling is sufficient
- The Sixth District has acknowledged that Carr creates a conflict with the plain language of the Florida Evidence Code, but remains bound by that precedent
- The Florida Supreme Court has been asked to resolve whether renewal is actually required
Why It Matters
This decision highlights a significant ambiguity in Florida criminal procedure that affects how trial attorneys must handle evidentiary objections. The conflict between Carr’s requirement to renew objections and § 90.104(1)’s apparent waiver of that requirement creates practical uncertainty for defense counsel attempting to preserve issues for appeal. Trial counsel who rely on the statute’s plain language risk losing appellate review of their evidence challenges.
The certification to the Florida Supreme Court signals that this inconsistency is a genuine problem affecting multiple cases and warrants clarification from the state’s highest court. Until resolved, trial attorneys must assume that renewal is required, even when a trial court has issued a definitive pretrial ruling, to safely preserve appellate arguments on evidence matters.