MIMS v. STATE (2021)

Jerry Mims appeals his judgment and sentence for several crimes resulting from his flight from law enforcement and possession of contraband. He raises one issue: that the trial court erred when it did not require the State to present the full video of the car chase pursuant to the rule of completeness codified in section 90.108(1), Fla. Stat. (2020). The trial judge made a tentative ruling on the admissibility of the omitted portion of the video but invited Mr. Mims to proffer it to establish admissibility. No proffer was made.

“Where a judge has tentatively granted a motion in limine concerning an area of evidence, but has indicated a willingness to reconsider the ruling after hearing a proffer of the actual testimony outside the jury's presence during trial, it is necessary to proffer the testimony sought to be introduced in order to preserve the issue for appeal.” Donley v. State, 694 So. 2d 149, 150 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Because this claim was not preserved, we affirm.

Affirmed.

Per Curiam.

Bilbrey, Nordby, and Long, JJ., concur.