M. P. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

M. P. v. State

350 So. 2d 1122

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 18, 1977

DocketNo. 76-1236

StatusPublished

This text of 350 So. 2d 1122 (M. P. 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

M. P. v. State, 350 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The point presented on this appeal from an adjudication of delinquency is that the trial court erred in refusing to allow the respondent (a juvenile) to make a proffer for the record of testimony, where the court sustained the State’s objection thereto. On this appeal, the State admits that such a refusal is ordinarily error. See Francis v. State, 308 So.2d 174 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), and Piccirrillo v. State, 329 So.2d 46 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). The State urges, nevertheless, that reversible error does not appear because enough appears from the record to show that the testimony was inadmissible.

Our examination of the record convinces us that the State’s position is not supported by the record. The testimony concerned a critical point, placing a witness’s credibility in issue, and was critical to the defense. See State v. Johnson, 284 So.2d 198 (Fla.1973).

We, therefore, reverse the adjudication of delinquency and remand the cause for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

The point presented on this appeal from an adjudication of delinquency is that the trial court erred in refusing to allow the respondent (a juvenile) to make a proffer for the record of testimony, where the court sustained the State’s objection thereto. On this appeal, the State admits that such a refusal is ordinarily error. See Francis v. State, 308 So.2d 174 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), and Piccirrillo v. State, 329 So.2d 46 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). The State urges, nevertheless, that reversible error does not appear because enough appears from the record to show that the testimony was inadmissible.

Our examination of the record convinces us that the State’s position is not supported by the record. The testimony concerned a critical point, placing a witness’s credibility in issue, and was critical to the defense. See State v. Johnson, 284 So.2d 198 (Fla.1973).

We, therefore, reverse the adjudication of delinquency and remand the cause for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

350 So. 2d 1122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/m-p-v-state-fladistctapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack