Brazell v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Brazell v. State

532 So. 2d 50, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2263, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4405, 1988 WL 101068

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 5, 1988

DocketNo. 87-3366

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 532 So. 2d 50 (Brazell v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brazell v. State, 532 So. 2d 50, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2263, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4405, 1988 WL 101068 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We 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).

We 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI