M. P. v. State

350 So. 2d 1122
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 18, 1977·No. No. 76-1236·Published

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

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

350 So. 2d 1122 (M. P. v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Piccirrillo v. State
329 So. 2d 46 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1976)
Francis v. State
308 So. 2d 174 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1975)
State v. Johnson
284 So. 2d 198 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1973)