Peterson v. State

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); *17Ketrow v. State, 414 So.2d 298 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982).

Affirmed.