Opinion
No. 80-811.
May 27, 1981.
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Marion County, William T. Swigert, Sr., J.
James B. Gibson, Public Defender and Brynn Newton, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and C. Michael Barnette, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.
Williams appeals an order withholding adjudication of guilt and placing him on three years probation for carrying a concealed weapon. He contends that the trial court refused to accept a proffer of his testimony at the hearing on his motion to suppress. We have reviewed the statements at the suppression hearing and find no error. Had appellant's trial attorney made a sufficient proffer of his client's testimony or had it been made clear on the record that appellant was prepared to present evidence of even the slightest relevance, a different result may have been necessary.
While we find no error, we feel compelled to point out a misstatement. The judge at the hearing, who was not Judge Swigert, said: "All we [meaning the state] have to do is present enough evidence to show that the seizure of the evidence was sufficient, and we don't have to have a full discovery or a full trial on this." This statement is not correct. An accused always has a right to present relevant evidence at a suppression hearing. If he is denied that right and adequately protects the record either with a proffer of relevant evidence or a showing he was denied the proffer, then we can remedy the error. Neither showing is in this record.
DAUKSCH, C.J., ORFINGER, and UPCHURCH, FRANK, D., Jr., JJ., concur.