Trial Judge's Discretionary Authority to Entertain a Motion or Supress An Objection to Introduction of Evidence During Trial
In Savoie v. State, 422 So. 2d 308, 311 (Fla. 1982), this Court held that the defendant's failure to file a pretrial motion to suppress does not result in an absolute waiver of the defendant's right to file a motion to suppress during trial. 422 So. 2d at 311.
The court recognized that rule 3.190(h)(4) "expressly grants the trial judge discretionary authority to entertain either a motion to suppress or an objection to the introduction of certain evidence made during the course of the trial." Savoie, 422 So. 2d at 311.
As we explained in Savoie:
This discretionary authority is necessary in order to avoid the sixth amendment ramifications which might result from the application of an absolute waiver rule against a defendant whose counsel failed to comply with the requirements of rule 3.190(h).
Likewise, the rule does not affect the inherent power of the trial court to reconsider, while the court has jurisdiction of the case and upon appropriate motion or objection by either counsel, a ruling previously made on a motion to suppress. Id. at 311-12.
The language in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(h)(4) has remained unchanged since our decision in Savoie v. State, 422 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 1982).