Piccirrillo v. State, X--256
| Decision Date | 30 March 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. X--256,X--256 |
| Citation | 329 So.2d 46 |
| Parties | Gary M. PICCIRRILLO, Appellant (Defendant), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee (State). |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, David J. Busch, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Gerry B. Rose, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
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.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jenkins v. State
...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......
-
Llanos v. State
...trial court's ruling. Phillips v. State, 351 So.2d 738 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 361 So.2d 834 (Fla. 1978); Piccirrillo v. State, 329 So.2d 46 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Here the attorneys together agreed what the substance of the impeaching statement was, the purpose of its being offered......
-
Hawthorne v. State
..."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......
-
Phillips v. State, 76-1026
...be reasonably specific and must state the purpose of the proof offered unless the purpose is apparent. See, e. g., Piccirrillo v. State, 329 So.2d 46 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Francis v. State, 308 So.2d 174 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); and McCormick, The Law of Evidence 109-112 (2d ed. 1972). Further, ......