R.J.J., 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 trial court erred by strictly applying the sequestration rule and denying a proffer of excluded testimony, requiring reversal.
Appellant was adjudicated delinquent for throwing a deadly missile at a vehicle. The trial court excluded a defense witness for violating the sequestr…
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 Sixth Amendment Right To Present Witnesses cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Acting Chief Judge.
R.J.J. appeals his adjudication of delinquency for throwing a deadly missile at a vehicle in violation of section 790.19, Florida Statutes (1995). He argues, and we agree, that the trial court erred by excluding a defense witness based on a violation of the sequestration rule and by denying a request to proffer the witness’s testimony. Accordingly, we reverse.
Before excluding testimony based on a violation of the sequestration rule, a trial court must determine that the offered testimony “was affected by other witnesses’ testimony to the extent that it substantially differed from what it would have been had the witness not heard the testimony.” Wright v. State, 473 So. 2d 1277, 1280 (Fla. 1985) (noting that rule of sequestration should not be enforced as a strict rule of law; recognizing that it can implicate a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to present witnesses). In this case, the trial court erred by strictly applying the sequestration rule.
Furthermore, the trial court erred when it refused to allow R. J. J. to make a proffer of the excluded evidence. See Rozier v. State, 636 So. 2d 1386 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Because the State did not present overwhelming evidence of guilt against R.J.J., we cannot say the errors were' harmless. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new adjudicatory hearing.
Reversed and remanded.
FULMER and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pepitone v. State, 846 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…the situation in which a proffer is denied, we conclude that this court should not automatically reverse due to the missing record; we should simply conclude that the transcript would establish preservation if it were available. Cf. R.J.J. v. State, 771 So. 2d 1265, 1266 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Rozier v. State, 636 So. 2d 1386, 1387-88 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (explaining function of proffer and reason that denial of proffer is treated as error). Thus, we conclude that we should review this issue as one that is preserv…
Authorities Cited
- Wright v. State, 473 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 1985)
- Tavoris A. Rozier v. State, 636 So. 2d 1386 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)