EMILIO RODRIGUEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1982-07-13
No. 81-2112
Before HUBBART, C. J., and SCHWARTZ and NESBITT, JJ.
416 So. 2d 866 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1982)


Opinion of the Court
SCHWARTZ, Judge.

SCHWARTZ, Judge.

The judgment under review is reversed for a new trial on the authority of and for the reasons stated in Rojas v. State, 412 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), which involved a codefendant of the present appellant. We reject the state’s contention that Rodriguez failed personally to preserve the self-incrimination point below both because a fair reading of the record shows that his counsel joined in the motion for mistrial explicitly asserted by the attorneys for the codefendants, see Clark v. State, 363 So. 2d 331 (Fla.1978), and because his lawyer’s own unequivocal objection to the offending comment was incorrectly overruled. Simpson v. State (Fla. Case no. 49,681, opinion filed, April 8, 1982).

The other points raised by the defendant have no merit. State v. Cooper, 391 So. 2d 332, 333 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); United States v. Ross,-U.S.-, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982).

Reversed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw