a blood expert or crime scene — I don’t really think he’s a blood spatter expert. MR. MEADOWS: We won’t have Chuck make opinions about recreating about this blood was struck here and that blood struck there, that’s not the purpose of what we are offering, but within his training and crime scene processing, part of the training they have is being able to determine direction in which blood was deposited by direction of the tail. MR. SMITH: That’s as far as you are going? MR. MEADOWS: And contact, that appears to be a contact, but that’s the extent, so I have not tendered him as an expert and— MR. SMITH: Well, if he’s just going to say this, you know, this is it, came from this direction.... (Side-bar conference concluded.) At the postconviction evidentiary hearing, Ric a. 1st DCA 1992) (<HOLDING>); Webb v. Priest, 413 So.2d 43, 46 (Fla. 3d DCA
holding that where defense counsel made a timely objection and it was overruled by the trial court a further request for a mistrial was unnecessary and futile since the reasons for the objection were apparent and the trial courts denial of the objection indicated its belief the jury could properly hear the matter which was the subject of the objection holding that counsel was ineffective for failing to assert an entrapment defense that was legally available and where there was no other viable defense to present holding that when defense counsel withdrew an objection to admission of evidence the defendant waived his right to a review of the courts ruling on appeal holding that defense of fraud was waived where no special issue was submitted and there was disputed evidence holding that where an objection was made and trial courts ruling was treated as conclusive by state and defense counsel there was no need for further objections when evidence was presented to jury