Peterson v. State
505 So. 2d 16, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 954, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7572
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 7, 1987·No. No. 85-1582·Published·Cited by 1 cases
Opinion
We affirm the defendant’s convictions for first-degree murder and robbery with a firearm upon a holding that the claimed error that the trial court unduly restricted the defendant’s cross-examination of his accomplice was not preserved for review by an appropriate proffer of the intended testimony. See Silveira-Hemandez v. State, 495 So.2d 914 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); A. McD. v. State, 422 So.2d 336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); [17]*17Ketrow v. State, 414 So.2d 298 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982).
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Peterson v. State, 505 So. 2d 16, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 954, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7572 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).
505 So. 2d 16 (Peterson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Gallagher v. State
570 So. 2d 442 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)