Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

329 So. 2d 46

Docket No. X-256.

Piccirrillo v. State

Gary M. PICCIRRILLO, Appellant (Defendant), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee (State).

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided March 30, 1976.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1976-03-30

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“A trial court should not refuse to allow a proffer of testimony. This is necessary to ensure full and effective appellate review. Francis v. State, 308 So.2d 174 (Fla.App. 1st, 1975).”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Hawthorne v. State, 432 So. 2d 800 - Pender v. State

Relies on 308 So. 2d 174 - Francis v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1976-03-30

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently May 1994

12 state decisions

70197619801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*47 Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, David J. Busch, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

¶2Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Gerry B. Rose, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

¶3MILLS, Judge.

¶4The 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.

¶5Although 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.

¶6During 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.

¶7This 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.

¶8We 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.

¶9Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

¶10BOYER, C.J., and SACK, MARTIN, Associate Judge, concur.

/329/so2d/46 · .json · Public domain