final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Maria
Elena Verde, Judge. Lower Tribunal No. 11-6004
J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Robert Kalter, Assistant
Public Defender, for appellant.
Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Michael W. Mervine, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
SUAREZ, C.J., and LAGOA and LUCK, JJ.
King Knight raises one issue in this appeal from his
conviction and sentence for sexual battery: the trial court
erred by allowing the victim of Knight's rape and beating
to testify that she saw a therapist, and couldn't go out
at night, in the days and weeks after the attack. Knight
contends that the probative value of this evidence was
substantially outweighed by its unfair prejudice, and
therefore was inadmissible under section 90.403 of the
Florida Statutes. Because Knight did not object at trial to
this part of the victim's testimony on
"prejudice" grounds,  the issue was not preserved for
appeal. See Datus v. State, 126 So.3d 363, 365 (Fla.
4th DCA 2013) ("[A]n objection on relevance grounds only
will not preserve an argument of unfair prejudice on
appeal."); Andrews v. State, 82 So.3d 979, 982
n.2 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) ("Appellant failed to object at
trial on undue prejudice grounds pursuant to section 90.403,
Florida Statutes (2008). As a result, he waived any possible
undue prejudice argument on appeal."); Reynolds v.
State, 660 So.2d 778, 780 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) ("By
defense counsel's simply objecting to testimony on the
grounds that it is 'cumulative, ' without more, the
trial court is not alerted to the fact that the objection is
based upon a contention that the probative value of the
otherwise admissible evidence is outweighed by the danger of
unfair prejudice.") Because admitting the victim's
testimony that after the rape she went to a therapist and
couldn't go out at night was not fundamental error, we
affirm. See Johnson v. State, 40 So.3d 883, 887
(Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (reviewing under harmless error analysis
the erroneous admission of post-assault victim behavior).
 "Relevant evidence is
inadmissible if its probative value is substantially
outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice . . . ."
§ 90.403, Fla. Stat.
 This is the relevant part of the
victim's testimony: [Prosecutor] How did you feel when
you got home?
[Ms. Brown] I was still in shock. I was still upset,
scared to go out. I don't go out at night. I cannot go
out at night.
[Prosecutor] Did they ever recommend any kind of
services to you when you are at Jackson Memorial