J.E.W. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

J.E.W. v. State

770 So. 2d 299, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 14615, 2000 WL 1671402

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 8, 2000

DocketNo. 3D00-1612

StatusPublished

This text of 770 So. 2d 299 (J.E.W. v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

J.E.W. v. State, 770 So. 2d 299, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 14615, 2000 WL 1671402 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant complains that the trial court erroneously admitted opinion testimony in violation of section 90.703, Florida Statutes (1999), however, the objection made to the trial judge was lack of foundation, not that the opinion given was improper. Thus, the error, if any, was not preserved for appeal. See Steinhorst v. State, 412 So.2d 332, 338 (Fla.1982); Kloster Cruise Ltd. v. Grubbs, 762 So.2d 552, 555 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant complains that the trial court erroneously admitted opinion testimony in violation of section 90.703, Florida Statutes (1999), however, the objection made to the trial judge was lack of foundation, not that the opinion given was improper. Thus, the error, if any, was not preserved for appeal. See Steinhorst v. State, 412 So.2d 332, 338 (Fla.1982); Kloster Cruise Ltd. v. Grubbs, 762 So.2d 552, 555 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

770 So. 2d 299, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 14615, 2000 WL 1671402, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jew-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack