EDDIE JAMES SCOTT, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed a receiving stolen property conviction because the trial court erred in failing to grant a mistrial when the prosecution elicited testimony about the defendant's post-arrest silence, a constitutional violation that could not be cured by jury instruction.
A trial court must grant a mistrial when the prosecution introduces testimony regarding a defendant's post-arrest silence, as such evidence violates the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights and cannot be cured by jury instruction.
[1] Testimony regarding a defendant's post-arrest silence constitutes constitutional error requiring mistrial and cannot be cured by jury instruction to disregard.
Previewing 1 of 1 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“For the most part, he refused to answer any questions, and he denied any allegations that were made.”
Testimony elicited from the arresting officer regarding Scott's post-arrest conduct
Eddie Scott was arrested on March 23, 1977, in connection with an automobile theft and was advised of his Miranda rights. During trial, the prosecutio…
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 Post-Arrest Silence cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment and sentence of the Circuit Court for Orange County involving the offense of receiving stolen property.
Appellant raises as error that the trial court failed to grant appellant’s motion for mistrial when the state produced testimony as to appellant’s post arrest silence.
We reverse.
On March 23, 1977, appellant was arrested in connection with the theft of an automobile and was advised of his Miranda rights. During the trial, the prosecution asked Officer Eagle, the arresting officer, the following question:
Q. Did you have further conversation with Eddie Scott there at that time, Mr. Ferguson?
A. Yes, sir, I did. It was more or less asking basic questions, where he had been, what he had been doing, so forth. For the most part, he refused to answer any questions, and he denied any allegations that were made.
This testimony was clearly improper as the court recognized in sustaining the objection and directing the jury to disregard it. However, the error cannot be considered harmless. The error was constitutional in dimension and it is reversible error not to have granted the mistrial. Weiss v. State, 341 So. 2d 528 (Fla.3d DCA 1977). It was not cured by the admonition to the jury to disregard the testimony. Bennett v. State, 316 So. 2d 41 (Fla.1975). See also Harris v. State, 381 So. 2d 260 (Fla.5th DCA 1980).
REVERSED and REMANDED for new trial.
DAUKSCH, C. J., and ORFINGER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bennett v. State, 316 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 1975)
- Weiss v. State, 341 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Harris v. State, 381 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)