Legal Opinion

Helms v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided March 17, 1989No. 88-441Published

1Opinion of the Court

LEHAN, Judge.

Defendant appeals from his conviction and sentence for sexual battery.

We affirm the conviction. Defendant argues that the trial court erroneously restricted his testimony by instructing him to not testify to matters which had been contained in the proffer of his testimony which the trial court referred to as only “ancillary.” While those matters appear to us to have been relevant to defendant’s defense, defendant did not object to their exclusion, see Page v. State, 412 So.2d 454 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), and, in fact, acquiesced thereto which may well have been justified for tactical…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Albritton v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1985
  2. State v. RousseauSupreme Court of Florida · 1987
  3. Casteel v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1986
  4. Page v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1982
  5. Mora v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1987

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API