B.M., a Child, Appellant, v. STATE (2026)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

B.M., a Child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D25-1031

Decided: April 08, 2026

Before SCALES, C.J., and LOGUE and BOKOR, JJ.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender and Susan S. Lerner, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. James Uthmeier, Attorney General and Yolande M. Samerson, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Affirmed. See Palos v. State, 306 So. 3d 331, 335 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (“The failure to proffer the proposed question or testimony to be elicited at the time of the trial court's denial [of recross] means that the defense failed to properly preserve the issue for this Court's review. As such, the trial court's ruling may only be considered on appeal if it constitutes fundamental error.”); Martin v. State, 350 So. 3d 446, 452 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022) (“Without a proffer, an appellate court cannot determine whether an error occurred, let alone a fundamental error.”); Finney v. State, 660 So. 2d 674, 684 (Fla. 1995) (“Without a proffer it is impossible for the appellate court to determine whether the trial court's ruling was erroneous and if erroneous what effect the error may have had on the result.”).

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network