Brazell v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided October 5, 1988

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1988-10-05

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Is a defendant who fails to proffer or otherwise establish on the record the nature of the testimony of a witness, whose identity has not properly been disclosed to the state, foreclosed from asserting the exclusion of such witness' testimony as error on appeal?”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 570 So. 2d 919 - Brazell v. State

Relies on 508 So. 2d 11 - Agan v. Duggar · Rome v. State · 524 So. 2d 461 - Smith v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1988-10-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently September 2016

14 state decisions

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 →

PER CURIAM.

¶1We affirm appellant’s conviction of sale of cocaine but reverse his separaté conviction for possession of the same cocaine. See Smith v. State, 524 So.2d 461 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988).

¶2We reject appellant’s claim of error in the trial court’s exclusion of a witness called by the appellant whose name had not been furnished in discovery. However, in doing so, we certify the same issue of great public importance certified in Nava v. State, 450 So.2d 606 (Fla 4th DCA 1984), cause dismissed, 508 So.2d 14 (Fla.1987):

Is a defendant who fails to proffer or otherwise establish on the record the nature of the testimony of a witness, whose identity has not properly been disclosed to the state, foreclosed from asserting the exclusion of such witness’ testimony as error on appeal?

ANSTEAD, LETTS and WALDEN, JJ., concur.