Phillips v. StatePhillips v. State
As a general rule the admissibility of photographic evidence is within the broad discretion of the trial judge. In the instant cаse, with regard to appellant‘s first point on appeal, there has been no clear showing of the abuse of this discretion; therefore, thе decision of the trial court on this point is affirmed. See, e.g., Swan v. State, 322 So.2d 485 (Fla. 1975); Wilkins v. State, 155 So.2d 129 (Fla. 1969); Leach v. State, 132 So.2d 329 (Fla. 1961); Garmise v. State, 311 So.2d 747 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Pressley v. State, 261 So.2d 522 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); and Reed v. State, 224 So.2d 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969).
Appellаnt, in her second point on appeal, contends that the trial cоurt erred by excluding the testimony of four proposed witnesses, who were dоctors, whose testimony was relevant and material to her affirmative dеfense of self-defense. The trial judge, after hearing an offer of prоof by defense counsel as to the proposed testimony of the doctors and upon objection by prosecution counsel, ruled that the proposed
The primary purpose of making an offer оf proof in the trial court, i.e., what the witness would say if he were permitted to answer a question and what is expected to be proved by the answer to the question, is to include the proposed answer and expeсted proof in the official record of the trial, so that in case of an appeal of the trial judge‘s ruling, the appellate court may understand the scope and effect of the question and proposed answer in considering whether the trial judge‘s ruling sustaining an objection was prоper. The statement constituting the offer of proof must be reasonаbly specific and must state the purpose of the proof offered unless the purpose is apparent. See, e.g., Piccirrillo v. State, 329 So.2d 46 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Francis v. State, 308 So.2d 174 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); and McCormick, The Lаw of Evidence 109-112 (2d ed. 1972). Further, it is the responsibility of the party attempting to introduce the evidence, by his offer of proof, to make its purpose clear to the trial court, otherwise, an objection to a ruling denying its admittance will not be considered by the court on appeal, even thоugh the appellant may have had a legitimate purpose in proposing its introduction. Without such a showing, it is impossible for the appellate court to determine whether the proposed evidence was admissible. See, e.g., Haager v. State, 83 Fla. 41, 90 So. 812 (Fla. 1922); Henry v. State, 81 Fla. 763, 89 So. 136 (Fla. 1921); Piccirrillo v. State, 329 So.2d 46 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); and Francis v. State, 308 So.2d 174 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975).
In the instant case, we have carefully reviewed the record and have concluded that the offer of proof, in regard tо appellant‘s second point on appeal, was not clеar or specific enough for us to determine that the trial court errеd in excluding the proposed testimony of the doctors. Although the proрosed testimony might have been proper for some purpose, bаsed on the offer of proof as made in regard to the appellant‘s defense of self-defense and the principles set forth above, we are unable to say that the trial judge erred as contended by appellant. Therefore, the decision of the trial court on this point is also affirmed. See Lightbourn v. State, 129 Fla. 43, 175 So. 857 (1937); McKnight v. State, 341 So.2d 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Fernandez v. Arocha, 308 So.2d 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); and Darty v. State, 161 So.2d 864 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964).
Based on the foregoing, the judgment appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.