L.B., A JUVENILE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
A juvenile appellant challenges the trial court's denial of a motion to add his stepfather as a witness after the adjudicatory hearing commenced and the rule of sequestration was invoked. The appellate court affirms the delinquency finding, holding that the constitutional argument was not properly preserved for appeal and no proffer was made regarding the excluded testimony.
The appellate court affirmed the delinquency finding because: (1) the constitutional argument regarding the right to present witnesses was not preserved for appeal as it was not raised in the trial court; (2) the issue was not properly preserved because no proffer was made of what the excluded testimony would have been; and (3) the denial did not constitute fundamental error.
[1] A litigant must make a timely, contemporaneous objection, stating a legal ground, to preserve an issue for appellate review.
[2] The purpose of requiring a contemporaneous objection is to notify the trial judge of potential error and allow an opportunity for correction.
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“To preserve an issue for appeal, a litigant must make a timely, contemporaneous objection, stating a legal ground for that objection.”
Establishes the preservation requirement that the appellant failed to satisfy by not raising the constitutional argument in the trial court.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceL.B. was charged with misdemeanor battery. During the adjudicatory hearing, after opening statements and invocation of the sequestration rule, the ste…
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 Rule Of Sequestration cases and more on FLexlaw
L.B., a juvenile, appeals the finding of delinquency for misdemeanor battery after the trial court denied his motion to amend the witness list to add the juvenile’s stepfather after the adjudicatory hearing had commenced, defense counsel had invoked the rule of sequestration and both sides had given their opening statements. L.B.’s stepfather, who had been sitting in the courtroom, announced that he “was there when it happened.” Defense counsel then spoke with the stepfather briefly and asked to amend the witness list to include the stepfather. The State objected. The court asked defense counsel whether the stepfather was “essential to [his] defense?” Defense counsel responded: “[h]e has information to the defense that corroborates the other defense witnesses’.” The trial court ruled that the Rule had been invoked and the stepfather had heard the opening statement. Defense counsel stated: “Okay, Your Honor.”
To preserve an issue for appeal, a litigant must make a timely, contemporaneous objection, stating a legal ground for that objection. The purpose for the rule is to “place the trial judge on notice that error may have been committed, and provide him an opportunity to correct it at an early stage of the proceedings.” Harrell v. State, 894 So.2d 935, 940 (Fla.2005). Here, L.B. did not make the argument in the trial court that he now advances on appeal-that the denial of his motion to amend the witness list violates his constitutional right to present witnesses on his behalf. The issue is therefore not preserved for appellate review.
The issue was also not preserved properly for appellate review because the defense did not proffer what the excluded testimony would have been. Such a proffer “is necessary to preserve a claim for appellate review because an appellate court will not otherwise speculate about the admissibility of such evidence.” de la Portilla v. State, 877 So.2d 871, 874 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). Defense counsel merely stated that the witness had information that corroborated the other defense witnesses. Defense counsel never proffered what the excluded testimony might be or how it would be relevant or admissible at the hearing.
We also reject the argument that the denial of the motion constituted fundamental error. See State v. Johnson, 616 So.2d 1, 3 (Fla.1993) (“[F]or an error to be so fundamental that it can be raised for the first time on appeal, the error must be basic to the judicial decision under review *1163and equivalent to a denial of due process.”).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Johnson, 616 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1993)
- Harrell v. State, 894 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 2005)
- DE LA Portilla v. State, 877 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)