Opinion ID: 1702128
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Special Jury Instruction on Premeditation

Text: At the jury instruction conference, the State requested the following special instruction: You may consider the nature of the weapon used, the manner in which the homicide was committed, and the nature and manner of the wounds inflicted upon the victim in determining whether the crime was premeditated. Hutchinson objected to the special instruction, but did not provide a basis for the objection. The trial court granted the State's request, and gave the State's requested special instruction after giving the standard instruction on premeditation. Hutchinson now argues that the special instruction amounts to judicial comment on the evidence. Hutchinson did not properly preserve this issue for appellate review. Although defense counsel objected to the special instruction at the jury instruction conference and later renewed the objection, defense counsel made no specific argument and did not set forth the basis for the objection. Defense counsel failed to argue that the special instruction amounted to judicial comment on the evidence. Unless a specific argument asserting the legal grounds for the objection is made, the issue may not be considered on appeal. See Jennings v. State, 782 So.2d 853, 862 (Fla.2001) (citing Steinhorst v. State, 412 So.2d 332, 338 (Fla.1982)). Steinhorst holds that [i]n order for an argument to be cognizable on appeal, it must be the specific contention asserted as legal ground for the objection, exception, or motion below. 412 So.2d at 338. Because the specific contention made here was not asserted below, this claim is procedurally barred. [2]