Maloy v. State

We affirm appellant’s convictions for tampering with evidence, possession of drug paraphernalia, and resisting an officer without violence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by disallowing appellant to display the inside of his mouth to a state witness during cross examination. Appellant did not seek to display the inside of his mouth to the jury once the state had rested. Therefore, appellant failed to preserve any objection by obtaining a definitive ruling on the issue of the closing argument “sandwich.” See Carratelli v. State, 832 So.2d 850, 856 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (stating…