Stewart v. State of Florida (1D2024-2366)
Summary
Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed trial court's ruling in Stewart v. State of Florida (No. 1D2024-2366). The appellate court upheld the conviction, finding Appellant failed to preserve evidentiary sufficiency challenges under Fla. Stat. § 90.803(23) and § 90.403 by not properly raising arguments below.
What changed
The First District Court of Appeal in Florida affirmed the trial court's decision in this criminal matter. The appellate court determined that the defendant's arguments regarding statement reliability and evidentiary challenges were not properly preserved for appellate review under Florida's evidence code. The court applied established precedent requiring parties to assert specific legal insufficiencies in trial court to preserve issues for appeal.
This decision reinforces the procedural requirement that criminal defendants must properly raise and preserve evidentiary objections in lower courts to maintain those challenges on appeal. The case has no broader regulatory implications beyond the individual defendant.
What to do next
- Monitor for updates
Archived snapshot
Apr 15, 2026GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.
Jump To
Top Caption Disposition Combined Opinion
Support FLP
CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.
Please become a member today.
April 15, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note
Stewart v. State of Florida
District Court of Appeal of Florida
- Citations: None known
- Docket Number: 1D2024-2366
Disposition: Affirmed
Disposition
Affirmed
Combined Opinion
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
No. 1D2024-2366
MARCUS WAYNE STEWART,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County.
Brantley S. Clark, Jr., Judge.
April 15, 2026
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. See Coleman v. State, 315 So. 3d 166, 168 (Fla. 1st
DCA 2021) (concluding that argument to trial court that
statements were unreliable, without “assert[ing] that the trial
court’s findings were legally insufficient,” fails to preserve a
sufficiency challenge under section 90.803(23), Florida Statutes);
Bass v. State, 35 So. 3d 43, 46 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (citing Reynolds
v. State, 660 So. 2d 778, 780 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)) (finding section
90.403 challenge unpreserved where objection in trial court
addressed bolstering, prior consistent statements, and
cumulativeness but did not raise the balancing test under section
90.403).
ROBERTS, WINOKUR, and NORDBY, JJ., concur.
Not final until disposition of any timely and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, Tallahassee, and Kevin P.
Steiger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Darcy
Townsend, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
2
Named provisions
Related changes
Get daily alerts for FL District Court of Appeal Opinions
Daily digest delivered to your inbox.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
Source
About this page
Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission
Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from FL 1st DCA.
The summary, classification, recommended actions, deadlines, and penalty information are AI-generated from the original text and may contain errors. Always verify against the source document.
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when FL District Court of Appeal Opinions publishes new changes.
Subscribed!
Optional. Filters your digest to exactly the updates that matter to you.