BUDNICK v. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, 101 So.3d 938 (2012)
Court: Court of Appeals of Florida
Number: inflco20121205138
Visitors: 11
Filed: Dec. 05, 2012
Latest Update: Dec. 05, 2012
Summary: POLEN, J. We affirm the final judgment because we find that the appellant's general objection to bifurcation was not sufficient to preserve the perceived error that certain evidence should be allowed into evidence during Phase I of the proceedings. See Noel v. Broward Gen. Med. Ctr., 725 So.2d 438 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Corona v. State, 64 So.3d 1232 (Fla.2011); Steinhorst v. State, 412 So.2d 332 (Fla.1982); Rodriguez v. State, 609 So.2d 493 (Fla.1992). Affirmed. STEVENSON,
Summary: POLEN, J. We affirm the final judgment because we find that the appellant's general objection to bifurcation was not sufficient to preserve the perceived error that certain evidence should be allowed into evidence during Phase I of the proceedings. See Noel v. Broward Gen. Med. Ctr., 725 So.2d 438 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Corona v. State, 64 So.3d 1232 (Fla.2011); Steinhorst v. State, 412 So.2d 332 (Fla.1982); Rodriguez v. State, 609 So.2d 493 (Fla.1992). Affirmed. STEVENSON, J..
More
POLEN, J.
We affirm the final judgment because we find that the appellant's general objection to bifurcation was not sufficient to preserve the perceived error that certain evidence should be allowed into evidence during Phase I of the proceedings. See Noel v. Broward Gen. Med. Ctr., 725 So.2d 438 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Corona v. State, 64 So.3d 1232 (Fla.2011); Steinhorst v. State, 412 So.2d 332 (Fla.1982); Rodriguez v. State, 609 So.2d 493 (Fla.1992).
Affirmed.
STEVENSON, J., and BONAVITA, AUGUST, Associate Judge, concur.
Source: Leagle
