ELEAZAR HERNANDEZ-PEREZ
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A trial court has discretion in answering jury questions and may answer directly or refer jurors to standard instructions; a Daubert objection to expert witness qualification is not preserved for appeal when no contemporaneous objection was made at trial.
[1] A trial court has discretion in answering jury questions during deliberations and may respond directly or refer jurors to standard jury instructions.
[2] A Daubert objection regarding the qualification of an expert witness is not preserved for appellate review unless the objection is made contemporaneously at trial with su…
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEleazar Hernandez-Perez was convicted in Palm Beach County circuit court. On appeal, he challenged the trial court's answer to a jury question and cla…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Daubert Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. We affirm appellant’s convictions. As to appellant’s first issue regarding the answer given to a jury question, the trial court has discretion in answering a jury question, and it may answer a question directly or refer jurors to standard instructions. See Perriman v. State, 731 So. 2d 1243, 1246–47 (Fla. 1999). The second issue, alleging a failure to conduct a Daubert1 inquiry of an expert witness, was not preserved. See State v. Ivey, 285 So. 3d 281, 286 (Fla. 2019) (stating that to be preserved for appeal, an objection must be “sufficiently precise that it fairly apprised the trial court of the relief sought and the grounds therefor” (quoting § 924.051(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2015))); see also Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Gore, 238 So. 3d 828, 830 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (finding Daubert issue not preserved where appellant failed to make a contemporaneous objection and there were no references to Daubert or section 90.702, Florida Statutes, at trial).
Affirmed. WARNER, DAMOORGIAN and FORST, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Daubert et ux. v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993)
- Perriman v. State, 731 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 1999)
- Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Gore, 238 So. 3d 828 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
- State v. Shawnest Angelo Ivey, 42 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2004 (Fla. 2019)