GARY M. PICCIRRILLO, APPELLANT (DEFENDANT),
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE (STATE)
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 in refusing to allow the defendant to make a proffer of testimony that the court had ruled inadmissible.
The defendant was charged with breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor and found guilty of attempted breaking and entering. During t…
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
MILLS, Judge.
The defendant was charged with breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor. The jury found him guilty of attempted breaking and entering. He appeals from the judgment of conviction and sentence to the state prison.
Although a number of issues are raised by this appeal, the issue which is determinative is whether the trial court erred in refusing to allow the defendant to make a proffer of testimony which the court had ruled was inadmissible.
During direct examination of the defendant’s wife by his attorney, the State objected to a question which sought the reason one of the arresting officers had stopped the wife several days before the alleged offense. Although the grounds for the objection were not stated, the court sustained the objection. The defendant then requested the court to permit him to make a proffer of the testimony. The court refused to permit the proffer. This was error. A trial court should not refuse to allow a proffer of testimony. This is necessary to insure full and effective appellate review. Francis v. State, 308 So. 2d 174 (Fla.App. 1st, 1975). We are compelled to reverse.
We have considered the other issues raised by the defendant, but under the facts in this case and the law applicable thereto, have not discussed them, because they do not involve error. Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
BOYER, C. J., and SACK, MARTIN, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Hawthorne v. State, 408 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…the proffer would be made,4 however, the trial court clearly indicated that the proffer would not be allowed. “A trial court should not refuse to allow a proffer of testimony. This is necessary to insure full appellate review.” Piccirrillo v. State, 329 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Appellee contends that in order for the episode regarding which America would have testified to have been relevant to the defense of self-defense, it had to be shown that appellant was aware of the occurrence. Not having a proff…
-
State v. Pezzella, 397 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…ndant’s home upon which defendant contends probable cause for his arrest was based and concerning the unavailability of a witness who invoked the Fifth Amendment. A trial court should not refuse to allow a proffer of testimony. Piccirrillo v. State, 329 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Upon remand questions relating to defendant’s standing to seek suppression of evidence under decisions released subsequent to the trial court’s ruling should be addressed. See United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83, 100 S.Ct.…
-
Jenkins v. State, 547 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…motion, finding the proffer irrelevant. In general, a trial court commits error if it denies a request to proffer testimony which is reasonably related to issues at trial. Kembro v. State, 346 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Piccirrillo v. State, 329 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). At trial and in his initial brief, appellant failed to demonstrate the relevancy of the proposed testimony. We conclude that the testimony was clearly irrelevant to any issue at trial. As a result, the trial court did not err in…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Francis v. State, 308 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)