B.M., a Child v. State of Florida

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed April 8, 2026.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D25-1031 Lower Tribunal No. J24-610 ________________

B.M., a Child, Appellant, vs. State of Florida, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Dawn Denaro, Judge.

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.

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

PER CURIAM.

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.”).