Brazell v. State
532 So. 2d 50, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2263, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4405, 1988 WL 101068
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 5, 1988·No. No. 87-3366·Published·Cited by 3 cases
Opinion
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?
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Brazell v. State, 532 So. 2d 50, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2263, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4405, 1988 WL 101068 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).
532 So. 2d 50 (Brazell v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Brazell v. State
570 So. 2d 919 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1990)
Psihogios v. State
544 So. 2d 283 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
Smith v. State
532 So. 2d 50 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)