B.M., A CHILD
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.
Failure to proffer proposed testimony or questions at the time of trial court's denial means the issue is not properly preserved for appellate review unless the error constitutes fundamental error.
[1] Failure to proffer proposed testimony or questions at the time of trial court denial results in failure to preserve the issue for appellate review unless the error consti…
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“Without a proffer, an appellate court cannot determine whether an error occurred, let alone a fundamental error.”
Martin v. State, discussing the necessity of offers of proof to preserve trial court rulings for appellate review
A child, B.M., appealed a trial court decision in Miami-Dade County. The appeal involved the trial court's ruling on proposed testimony or recross-exa…
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.
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed April 8, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D25-1031 Lower Tribunal No. J24-610
B.M., a Child, Appellant,
vs.
State of Florida, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Dawn Denaro, Judge.
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender and Susan S. Lerner, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General and Yolande M. Samerson, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before SCALES, C.J., and LOGUE and BOKOR, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Palos v. State, 306 So. 3d 331, 335 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) ("The failure to proffer the proposed question or testimony to be elicited at the time of the trial court's denial [of recross] means that the defense failed to properly preserve the issue for this Court's review. As such, the trial court's ruling may only be considered on appeal if it constitutes fundamental error."); Martin v. State, 350 So. 3d 446, 452 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022) (“Without a proffer, an appellate court cannot determine whether an error occurred, let alone a fundamental error."); Finney v. State, 660 So. 2d 674, 684 (Fla. 1995) ("Without a proffer it is impossible for the appellate court to determine whether the trial court's ruling was erroneous and if erroneous what effect the error may have had on the result.").
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
B.M. v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)…r, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. James Uthmeier, Attorney General and Yolande M. Samerson, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before SCALES, C.J., and LOGUE and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM. ---PAGE 2--- Affirmed. See Palos v. State, 306 So. 3d 331, 335 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) ("The failure to proffer the proposed question or testimony to be elicited at the time of the trial court's denial [of recross] means that the defense failed to properly preserve the issue for this Court's review. As such, th…1 / 2
-
Barrish v. Interiors by Steven G., Inc. (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)
Authorities Cited
- Finney v. State, 660 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 1995)
- B.M. v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)