Stripling v. State, 664 So. 2d 2

PER CURIAM.

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.

Case Details

Case Name: Stripling v. State

Court Name: District Court of Appeal of Florida

Date Published: Dec 15, 1995

Citations: 664 So. 2d 2; 1995 WL 59589; 94-341

Docket Number: 94-341

Court Abbreviation: Fla. Dist. Ct. App.