SHAVONN CHANYELL NORFLEET, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Florida appellate court affirmed conviction, holding that trial court's declaration of state witnesses as experts in front of jury did not constitute fundamental error where defense counsel's objection was directed at witness qualifications rather than the court's pronouncement itself.
A trial court's declaration that certain state witnesses were experts in front of the jury does not rise to the level of fundamental error when defense counsel's objection was directed at the witness's qualifications to testify as an expert rather than at the court's act of declaring the witness an expert.
[1] A trial court's declaration that witnesses are experts in front of the jury does not constitute fundamental error when defense counsel's objection at trial was directed a…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Proper preservation entails three components. First, a litigant must make a timely, contemporaneous objection. Second, the party must state a legal ground for that objection. Third, '[i]n order for an argument to be cognizable on appeal, it must be the specific contention asserted as legal ground for the objection, exception, or motion below.'”
Court explaining the requirements for proper preservation of issues for appeal, citing Harrell v. State.
Appellant Norfleet was convicted at trial where the trial court declared certain state witnesses, including Dr. Pena, to be experts in front of the ju…
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 Expert Witness Qualification cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant raises four issues in this direct criminal appeal. We affirm issues I, II, and IV without discussion, and we affirm issue III based on Norfleet v. State, Case No. 1D16-1971 (Fla. 1st DCA June 27, 2017), and Mitchell v. State, 207 So.3d 369 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016), because the trial court’s declaration in front of the jury that certain state witnesses were “experts” did not rise to the level of fundamental error1 in this case,
AFFIRMED.
WETHERELL, RAY, and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Steinhorst v. State, 412 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1982)
- Harrell v. State, 894 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 2005)
- Mitchell v. State, 207 So. 3d 369 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)