B.K.F., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a juvenile's attempted burglary conviction because the trial court erred in refusing to allow the defense to proffer testimony from a missing alibi witness, denying the defendant an opportunity to preserve the issue for appellate review.
Yes. The trial court erred in refusing to allow the proffer of the missing witness's testimony. A trial court should not refuse to allow a proffer as it is necessary to ensure full and effective appellate review. The state failed to demonstrate that the disallowance was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt.
[1] A trial court should not refuse to allow a proffer of testimony to ensure full and effective appellate review.
[2] A trial court's disallowance of a proffer of testimony is reversible error unless the state demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“A trial court should not refuse to allow a proffer of testimony. This is necessary to ensure full and effective appellate review.”
Establishes the legal principle that proffered testimony must be allowed to preserve issues for appellate review.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn July 29, 1991, Gary Daughtry discovered two people attempting to break into his Corvette. When confronted, both fled and Daughtry caught Walter Len…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Proffer Of Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
PATTERSON, Judge.
The appellant challenges his judgment and sentence for attempted burglary. He argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a continuance and his request to proffer the anticipated testimony of Efraim Torres, a defense witness who did not appear pursuant to a subpoena. We reverse.
On the night of July 29, 1991, Gary Daughtry saw a person in his driveway with his hands on top of Daughtry’s Corvette looking into the car through the acrylic top. Another person was standing on the passenger side of the car door with his hands on the handle. The two ran when they saw Daughtry and his daughter. Daughtry chased them and caught Walter Lentz. When the police arrived, Lentz told the officers that the appellant was the person who was with him.
On September 11, 1991, the state charged the appellant, a sixteen-year-old child, with attempted burglary of a conveyance. On November 1, 1991, the appellant filed a motion stating that he agreed to waive his right to speedy trial in exchange for a continuance to give him an opportunity to locate Lentz. In the motion, the appellant proffered that Lentz would testify that the appellant was not the person who was with him when he committed the offense. The appellant also proffered the testimony of another defense witness, Joey Wright, who was to testify that it was he who was present when the offense was committed, not the appellant.
On January 7, 1992, the defense was prepared for trial with an alibi witness, Efriam Torres, but the judge was ill and did not hold court. On the morning of trial, February 4, 1992, defense counsel again requested a continuance to locate Torres, who had not responded to a subpoena which had been left on his doorstep. The witness, a child in foster care, had been moved since the earlier date and was not aware of the new trial date. When the trial court denied the motion for a continuance, defense counsel requested that she be allowed to proffer the testimony of the missing witness to preserve the issue for appeal. The court also denied the request for a proffer. Although the appellant’s motion for a continuance proffered the testimony of two other defense witnesses, Lentz and Wright, it is unclear from the record what Torres’ testimony would have been. “A trial court should not refuse to allow a proffer of testimony. This is necessary to ensure full and effective appellate review.” Piccirrillo v. State, 329 So. 2d 46, 47 (Fla 1st DCA 1976) (citing Francis v. State, 308 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 1st 1975)). Since the state has not shown beyond ⅞ reasonable doubt whether the trial court’s disallowance of the proffer was harmless error, we reverse and remand to the trial court to permit the proffer. See Pender v. State, 432 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).
Reversed and remanded.
FRANK, A.C.J., and BLUE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fehringer v. State, 976 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…which is reasonably related to the issues at trial. Wood v. State, 654 So. 2d 218, 220 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). This is so because refusing to permit the proffer precludes full and effective appellate review. Rozier, 636 So. 2d at 1387; B.K.F. v. State, 614 So. 2d 1167, 1168 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Pender v. State, 432 So. 2d 800, 802 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Brown v. State, 431 So. 2d 247, 248 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). The disallowance of a proffer “thwarts a defendant’s right to cross examine witnesses guaranteed by the sixt…
Authorities Cited
- Piccirrillo v. State, 329 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Francis v. State, 308 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Pender v. State, 432 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)