Opinion ID: 1102756
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Exclusion of Mental Health Reports

Text: Appellant argues that the trial court erred in refusing to admit three reports by defense expert Dr. Garfield on the basis that such reports were cumulative and hearsay. The reports at issue were never made a part of the record in this case, nor were the contents ever proffered to the court. In order to preserve a claim based on the court's refusal to admit evidence, the party seeking to admit the evidence must proffer the contents of the excluded evidence to the trial court. See Lucas v. State, 568 So.2d 18, 22 (Fla.1990) (A proffer is necessary to preserve a claim such as this because an appellate court will not otherwise speculate about the admissibility of such evidence.); Jacobs v. Wainwright, 450 So.2d 200, 201 (Fla.1984) (The purpose of a proffer is to put into the record testimony which is excluded from the jury so that an appellate court can consider the admissibility of the excluded testimony. Reversible error cannot be predicated on conjecture.). The failure to do so, therefore, prevents appellate review of the excluded items. See Lucas, 568 So.2d at 22; see also 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.). However, even if the issue had been preserved for appellate review, the exclusion of these reports by the trial court did not constitute error as the reports were cumulative to evidence actually admitted during Dr. Garfield's testimony. See Sims v. Brown, 574 So.2d 131, 134 (Fla.1991) (Even if wrongfully excluded, the exclusion of cumulative testimony is not an adequate basis for vacating a jury verdict.). Appellant has not indicated that the reports contained evidence not otherwise testified to by the expert who testified extensively about matters contained in her reports. Appellant's remaining argument, that the trial court improperly refused to consider valid mitigating evidence contained in the reports likewise is without merit. As noted above, the expert testified at length about her findings and opinions with respect to appellant. Appellant has not indicated that the reports contained additional mitigating evidence not presented through the witness's in-court testimony. Finally, the sentencing order reflects that the trial court considered the expert's testimony in finding some of the mitigating factors. Accordingly, we find no reversible error in the trial court's exclusion of these reports. Cf. Griffin v. State, 639 So.2d 966 (Fla.1994) (no error in excluding newspaper article at penalty portion of trial where person who wrote article testified at trial and related the information and comments contained in article).