NESRIEN AZURIN
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.
The conviction is affirmed despite counsel's failure to preserve error through non-specific evidentiary objections, as the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
[1] Non-specific and non-articulated evidentiary objections fail to preserve error for appellate review and are categorically unacceptable practice.
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“Non-specific and non-articulated evidentiary objections by any party to a proceeding are categorically unacceptable and the profession should be alarmed at the frequency with which this lack of basic legal acumen takes place.”
Judge Ciklin's concurring opinion criticizing counsel's failure to preserve error
Nesrien Azurin was convicted in the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County. Trial counsel failed to make specific and a…
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 Evidentiary Objections cases and more on FLexlaw
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Cheryl Caracuzzo, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2015-CF-001532-AXXX-MB.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Peggy Natale, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Marc B. Hernandez, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. GERBER, C.J. and MAY, J., concur. CIKLIN, J., concurs with opinion. CIKLIN, J., concurring. I concur in the decision to affirm. I write to draw attention to a problem presented somewhat regularly in the cases that come before this court: trial counsel’s failure to preserve error. In this case, the lack of preservation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. This is not always the case. Non-specific and non-articulated evidentiary objections by any party to a proceeding are categorically unacceptable and the profession should be alarmed at the frequency with which this lack of basic legal acumen takes place.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.