HERNANDEZ PEREZ v. STATE (2021)

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 Daubert ¹ 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.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1993).

Per Curiam.

Warner, Damoorgian and Forst, JJ., concur.