Reaves v. State, Nos. 87-1679

CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)
Writing for the CourtCOBB
Citation13 Fla. L. Weekly 2182,531 So.2d 401
Parties13 Fla. L. Weekly 2182 William REAVES and Ruben A. Soto, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Decision Date22 September 1988
Docket NumberNos. 87-1679,87-1911

Page 401

531 So.2d 401
13 Fla. L. Weekly 2182
William REAVES and Ruben A. Soto, Appellants,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Nos. 87-1679, 87-1911.
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
Fifth District.
Sept. 22, 1988.

Page 402

James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Barbara L. Condon, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellants.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Colin Campbell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

COBB, Judge.

In this consolidated appeal, William Reaves and Ruben A. Soto challenge their convictions for trafficking in cocaine and possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony. We affirm the convictions of Reaves, but reverse those of Soto.

In Soto's case, the trial court allowed the state to reopen its case after resting in order to call an additional rebuttal witness, one Charles Cannon. This was a witness that was allowed because the state was unaware, prior to trial, that entrapment was an issue. Cannon testified that Soto was involved in a prior drug transaction, testimony which was admissible as tending to show predisposition and thereby disprove entrapment.

After Cannon's testimony, Soto's trial counsel requested the opportunity to present surrebuttal evidence. This was denied by the trial court on the stated basis that "in Florida there is no such thing as surrebuttal."

Surrebuttal testimony is properly admitted in Florida subject to the trial court's discretion. See Davis v. Ivey, 93 Fla. 387, 112 So. 264 (1927); Williams v. State, 487 So.2d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Gandy v. State, 440 So.2d 432 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). In the instant case, however, the trial court exercised no discretion; rather, it simply held that such testimony was improper as a matter of law, regardless of its content. In other words, the trial court failed to recognize discretion existed. This was error. Nonetheless, the state argues the defendant failed to properly preserve the issue for appeal by not proffering the testimony he would have presented as surrebuttal evidence in accordance with Section 90.104(1) of the Evidence Code. 1

Page 403

While ordinarily the adversely affected party must proffer the excluded evidence to the court, a proffer is unnecessary where the substance of the excluded testimony is apparent from the context within which it was offered. § 90.104(1), Fla.Stat. (1987). Moreover, a proffer is unnecessary where the offer would be a useless ceremony, where the evidence is rejected as...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 practice notes
  • Kovaleski v. State, No. 4D06-1168.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • January 5, 2009
    ...the substance of the excluded testimony is apparent from the context in which it is offered. § 90.104(1)(b), Fla. Stat.; Reaves v. State, 531 So.2d 401 (Fla. 5th DCA We agree with the state that a proffer was necessary under these facts, because the record is silent as to whether the minor ......
  • G.A. v. State, No. 88-3078
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • October 17, 1989
    ...Ordinarily, the adversely affected party must make a proffer of excluded testimony. § 90.104(1), Fla.Stat. (1987); Reaves v. State, 531 So.2d 401 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). A proffer of testimony is necessary for the appellate court to determine whether the testimony is relevant and material, Pen......
  • Ayala v. State, Case No. 2D16–3327
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • December 13, 2017
    ...the trial court shut down any further arguments. It was therefore unnecessary for Mr. Ayala to make such a proffer. See Reaves v. State, 531 So.2d 401, 403 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) ("[A] proffer is unnecessary where the offer would be a useless ceremony, where the evidence is rejected as a class......
  • Hansen v. State, No. 90-2136
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • September 4, 1991
    ...is unnecessary where the substance of the excluded testimony is apparent from the context within which it was offered. Reaves v. State, 531 So.2d 401 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). Here, the record is sufficient for us to rule on the propriety of the trial court's exclusion of the...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 cases
  • Kovaleski v. State, No. 4D06-1168.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • January 5, 2009
    ...the substance of the excluded testimony is apparent from the context in which it is offered. § 90.104(1)(b), Fla. Stat.; Reaves v. State, 531 So.2d 401 (Fla. 5th DCA We agree with the state that a proffer was necessary under these facts, because the record is silent as to whether the minor ......
  • G.A. v. State, No. 88-3078
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • October 17, 1989
    ...Ordinarily, the adversely affected party must make a proffer of excluded testimony. § 90.104(1), Fla.Stat. (1987); Reaves v. State, 531 So.2d 401 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). A proffer of testimony is necessary for the appellate court to determine whether the testimony is relevant and material, Pen......
  • Ayala v. State, Case No. 2D16–3327
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • December 13, 2017
    ...the trial court shut down any further arguments. It was therefore unnecessary for Mr. Ayala to make such a proffer. See Reaves v. State, 531 So.2d 401, 403 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) ("[A] proffer is unnecessary where the offer would be a useless ceremony, where the evidence is rejected as a class......
  • Hansen v. State, No. 90-2136
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • September 4, 1991
    ...is unnecessary where the substance of the excluded testimony is apparent from the context within which it was offered. Reaves v. State, 531 So.2d 401 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). Here, the record is sufficient for us to rule on the propriety of the trial court's exclusion of the...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT