EDDIE JAMES HARRIS, 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.
Eddie James Harris was convicted of attempted burglary but the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial after two prosecution witnesses made improper comments about Harris remaining silent following his Miranda warnings. The court held that such comments, whether deliberate or spontaneous, require automatic reversal when timely objected to, regardless of any curative instructions.
The court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that when improper comments are made about a defendant's right to remain silent during jury trial and a timely objection and motion for mistrial are made, the case must be reversed for a new trial without regard to the harmless error rule or curative instructions, regardless of whether the comment is deliberate or spontaneous.
[1] Improper comment on a defendant's right to remain silent, made during a jury trial after a timely objection and motion for mistrial, requires reversal for a new trial wit…
[2] The rule prohibiting comment on a defendant's silence applies regardless of whether the comment is made by the prosecutor, a state witness, a court witness, or a defense…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“If during a jury trial a timely objection and motion for mistrial are made, following improper comment on a defendant's right to remain silent, the case must be reversed for new trial, without regard to the 'harmless error' rule, and without regard to any curative instructions by the court.”
Establishes the automatic reversal rule for improper silence comments when timely objected to
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarris was arrested and read his Miranda warnings by Officer Parker. During trial, the prosecutor asked what the defendant said after receiving the wa…
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 Improper Comment On Silence cases and more on FLexlaw
SHARP, Judge.
Eddie James Harris was convicted of attempted burglary after a jury trial. The appellant urges that reversible error was committed by the trial court when it refused to declare a mistrial, after two prosecution witnesses made improper comments about the appellant remaining silent, following his arrest and being read his “Miranda ” warnings.1 Defense counsel made timely objection and moved for a mistrial, in each instance. We agree that reversible error occurred, and accordingly we reverse and remand for a new trial.
The Florida Supreme Court set forth in Clark v. State, 363 So. 2d 331 (Fla.1978) the principles which control this case. If during a jury trial a timely objection and motion for mistrial are made, following improper comment on a defendant’s right to remain silent, the case must be reversed for new trial, without regard to the “harmless error” rule, and without regard to' any curative instructions by the court. It makes no difference whether the comment is made by the prosecutor, state witness, court witness, or a defense witness (unless invited or deliberately procured by the defense). Nor does it matter whether the comment is deliberate or spontaneous. What the jury hears or may understand or infer is the critical point.
In this case the comments were not deliberate. They occurred as a result of questioning by the prosecutor. Officer Parker, one of the arresting police officers, testified that he read the appellant the “Miranda ” warnings. The prosecutor asked, “What, if anything, did the defendant say at that time?” He replied, “At that time, he did not indicate anything.” Later in the trial, Lieutenant Scott, another police officer present at appellant’s arrest, was asked, “When you said, do you understand what I told you, what if anything did he say or do?” Lieutenant Scott said, “There was no, nothing.” From the bench-side conference, out of the presence of the jury, it is clear that the trial court and attorneys were trying to ascertain what the appellant said or did to indicate he understood the “Miranda ” warnings. But the testimony the jury heard was not so limited. Both instances could have been understood by the jury as improper comment on the appellant’s remaining silent at the time of his arrest and thus they constitute reversible error. Shannon v. State, 335 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1976); Bennett v. State, 316 So. 2d 41 (Fla.1975); Jones v. State, 200 So. 2d 574 (Fla.3d DCA 1967).
The appellant’s conviction is reversed, and this cause is remanded for a new trial.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DAUKSCH, C. J., and COBB, J., concur. . Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct.1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Washington v. State, 388 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…5 (Fla.1976); Bennett v. State, 316 So. 2d 41 (Fla.1975); Weiss v. State, 341 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). The objection was proper and the motion for mistrial should have been granted. Clark v. State, 363 So. 2d 331 (Fla.1978); Harris v. State, 381 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Appellant’s conviction is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial. REVERSED and REMANDED. DAUKSCH, C. J., and FRANK D. UP-CHURCH, Jr., J., concur.…
-
Tindall v. State, 395 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 10 A.L. R.3d 974 (1966). The objection was proper and the motion for mistrial should have been granted. Clark v. State, 363 So. 2d 331 (Fla.1978); Washington v. State, 388 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Harris v. State, 381 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). The State contends that the context of this testimony indicates that appellant did make certain statements, although not concerning admissions, so the officer’s testimony is not improper. The fact that appellant might have talk…
-
Carter v. State, 435 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…otion for mistrial. With the above additional comments, I join in the majority’s affirmance. . Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). . The risk of inadvertent comment and needless reversal, as in Harris v. State, 381 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), should also be considered. . The officer testified that upon his initial contact with appellant he stated “police officer” to appellant. During the ensuing struggle (the officer had to forcibly take a pistol away from appellant…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Clark v. State, 363 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 1978)
- Shannon v. State, 335 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1976)
- Bennett v. State, 316 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 1975)
- Jones v. State, 200 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Madge P. Ball v. Ball, 335 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1976)