R.J.J. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

R.J.J. v. State

771 So. 2d 1265, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 14871, 2000 WL 1700200

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 15, 2000

DocketNo. 2D99-3534

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 771 So. 2d 1265 (R.J.J. 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

R.J.J. v. State, 771 So. 2d 1265, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 14871, 2000 WL 1700200 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

BLUE, Acting Chief Judge.

R.J.J. appeals his adjudication of delinquency for throwing a deadly missile at a vehicle in violation of section 790.19, Florida Statutes (1995). He argues, and we agree, that the trial court erred by excluding a defense witness based on a violation of the sequestration rule and by denying a [1266]*1266request to proffer the witness’s testimony. Accordingly, we reverse.

Before excluding testimony based on a violation of the sequestration rule, a trial court must determine that the offered testimony “was affected by other witnesses’ testimony to the extent that it substantially differed from what it would have been had the witness not heard the testimony.” Wright v. State, 473 So.2d 1277, 1280 (Fla. 1985) (noting that rule of sequestration should not be enforced as a strict rule of law; recognizing that it can implicate a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to present witnesses). In this case, the trial court erred by strictly applying the sequestration rule.

Furthermore, the trial court erred when it refused to allow R. J. J. to make a proffer of the excluded evidence. See Rozier v. State, 636 So.2d 1386 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Because the State did not present overwhelming evidence of guilt against R.J.J., we cannot say the errors were' harmless. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new adjudicatory hearing.

Reversed and remanded.

FULMER and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.

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

BLUE, Acting Chief Judge.

R.J.J. appeals his adjudication of delinquency for throwing a deadly missile at a vehicle in violation of section 790.19, Florida Statutes (1995). He argues, and we agree, that the trial court erred by excluding a defense witness based on a violation of the sequestration rule and by denying a [1266]*1266request to proffer the witness’s testimony. Accordingly, we reverse.

Before excluding testimony based on a violation of the sequestration rule, a trial court must determine that the offered testimony “was affected by other witnesses’ testimony to the extent that it substantially differed from what it would have been had the witness not heard the testimony.” Wright v. State, 473 So.2d 1277, 1280 (Fla. 1985) (noting that rule of sequestration should not be enforced as a strict rule of law; recognizing that it can implicate a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to present witnesses). In this case, the trial court erred by strictly applying the sequestration rule.

Furthermore, the trial court erred when it refused to allow R. J. J. to make a proffer of the excluded evidence. See Rozier v. State, 636 So.2d 1386 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Because the State did not present overwhelming evidence of guilt against R.J.J., we cannot say the errors were' harmless. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new adjudicatory hearing.

Reversed and remanded.

FULMER and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

771 So. 2d 1265, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 14871, 2000 WL 1700200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rjj-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack