Consequences of Faliure of Defendant In Providing Specific Legal Argument

In Occhicone v. State, 570 So. 2d 902, 906 (Fla. 1990), the defendant asserted that the trial court committed error in not defining the crime of burglary when instructing the jury on the aggravating factor of murder committed during the course of a burglary. See: 570 So. 2d at 905. During the sentencing proceeding charge conference, Occhicone objected to all of the proposed aggravating circumstances. See: id. Regarding the instant one, he argued that "the facts, evidence and circumstances" did not support it. Id. After hearing argument from both sides, the court held that the state could argue this factor and that the jury would be instructed on it. See: id. Occhicone did not object again and did not object on the specific ground advanced on appeal, i.e., failure to define burglary, or request the giving of such definition. See: id. at 905- 06. The Court held that this claim had not been preserved because the defendant failed to present to the trial court the specific legal argument he was presenting on appeal. See: id.