ROBERT JAMES WHITESIDE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Appellant Whiteside appealed his robbery with firearm conviction, challenging whether the prosecutor's questions about statements he did not make constituted impermissible comment on his right to remain silent under Miranda. The court held that eliciting all voluntary statements made by the defendant and asking what else he may have said does not constitute comment on the right to silence.
The court held that the prosecutor's questions and the officers' negative answers do not constitute impermissible comment on the right to remain silent. The state attorney had the right to elicit all voluntary statements made by the defendant, and asking what else the defendant may have said is permissible.
[1] Questions and answers eliciting voluntary statements made by a defendant to arresting officers do not constitute an impermissible comment on the defendant's constitutiona…
[2] A court may treat a petition for writ of certiorari as a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The state attorney had every right to elicit all of the voluntary statements made by the appellant. The above questions are no more than the equivalent of asking what else the appellant may have said.”
Establishes that prosecutors may inquire about the full scope of defendant's voluntary statements without running afoul of Miranda protections.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing arrest and Miranda warnings, appellant Whiteside made voluntary statements to arresting officers either in response to questions or gratuito…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Impermissible Comment On Silence cases and more on FLexlaw
OTT, Judge.
Appellant brought his appeal to this court from his conviction for robbery with a firearm. This court affirmed by its Per Curiam Affirmed decision, Whiteside v. State, 366 So. 2d 1232 (2d DCA 1977). Appellant then filed his Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court treated the appellant’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari as a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and remanded the ease to this court to revisit our previous Per Curiam Affirmed decision in the light of Clark v. State, 363 So. 2d 331 (1978). We affirm and adhere to our previous decision for the reasons hereafter stated.
Following his arrest the appellant was advised of his constitutional rights (commonly referred to as Miranda warnings) including his right to remain silent. Thereafter, the appellant made certain voluntary statements to the arresting officers either in answer to their questions or gratuitously. After the arresting officers testified as to these voluntary statements of the appellant the state attorney asked the following questions and the officers gave the following answers:
FIRST OFFICER:
Q. . did he make any statements about where it (the money found pursuant to appellant’s prior statement) was from or anything?
A. No, sir. SECOND OFFICER:
Q. Did the defendant make any other statements in your presence? A. No, sir. Counsel for the appellant thereupon moved for a mistrial and asserted the above questions and answers constituted an impermissible comment on the appellant’s constitutional right to remain silent.
If the above questions and answers amount to “comment” then appellant has clearly preserved his right to assert error, on appeal, to the denial of his request for mistrial pursuant to the Supreme Court holding in Clark v. State, supra.
This court previously concluded and now holds that the above questions and answers do not constitute “comment” on the constitutional right to remain silent. The state attorney had every right to elicit all of the voluntary statements made by the appellant. The above questions are no more than the equivalent of asking what else the appellant may have said. We have not been cited to nor are we aware of any case holding this to be impermissible comment on the constitutional right to remain silent.
The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied and our previous Per Curiam Affirmed decision is adhered to.
RYDER and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Chavers v. State, 380 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…ermit the jury to consider the inference of guilt drawn from the fact of unexplained possession of recently stolen goods. State v. Young, 217 So. 2d 567 (Fla.1968), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 853, 90 S.Ct. 112, 24 L.Ed.2d 101 (1969); Whiteside v. State, 366 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Cridland v. State, 338 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). However, the trial court erred in allowing the prosecution to ask defendant’s key witness the following questions over objection during cross-examination, and erred in allowin…
-
Whiteside v. State, 366 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)…OTT, Judge. Appellant brought his appeal to this court from his conviction for robbery with a firearm. This court affirmed by its Per Curiam Affirmed decision, Whiteside v. State, 366 So. 2d 1232 (2d DCA 1977). Appellant then filed his Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court treated the appellant’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari as a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and remanded the ease to this court to…
Authorities Cited
- Clark v. State, 363 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 1978)
- Whiteside v. State, 366 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)