MICHAEL RAY FARRELL, 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 appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding the issue of cross-examination was waived.
Appellant was convicted of tampering with evidence after swallowing what officers believed to be crack cocaine. The defense sought to cross-examine an…
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 Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
POLEN, C.J.
During a surveillance, Officer Bradford observed appellant buy what was believed to be crack cocaine from an unidentified black male. As the police moved in, appellant put a rock into his mouth. Officer Dardeen ordered appellant to spit out the cocaine, but he swallowed it. He was later charged with and convicted of tampering with evidence.
His sole point on appeal is that the trial court erred in not allowing the defense to cross-examine Officer Bradford as to what happened to the unidentified black male appellant later identified as “Bee.” Appellant’s defense was that “Bee” was a homeless man he knew casually from the streets; that appellant had given Bee a dollar; and there were no drugs involved. Appellant’s attorney had successfully objected, however, when the state attempted to ask similar questions of Officer Bradford on direct examination.
We affirm, inter alia, on the basis that the issue was waived when appellant’s counsel sought to ask Officer Bradford on cross as to what police follow-up occurred as to Bee. Defense counsel posed a few proposed questions, to each of which the state’s objection was sustained. Counsel did not offer any argument, nor did he ask for a sidebar, attempt to make a proffer, nor otherwise enlighten the trial court as to why the line of questioning might be relevant. Thus, the issue is not preserved for review, and we must affirm. See Steinhorst v. State, 412 So. 2d 332 (Fla.1982).
AFFIRMED.
GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.