DONNIE FUSSELL, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
DONNIE FUSSELL, APPELLANT,
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
436 So. 2d 434
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1983)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
During voir dire examination, the prosecutor asked a prospective juror, “Does it bother you that a 14 year old girl is going to be the victim in this case, it is going to be her word against his word?” While the question generally represented the projected evidence in the case, (which consisted of the victim’s testimony pitted against that of the defendant’s admissible confession) the question nonetheless constituted a comment upon the defendant’s failure to testify in his own behalf. Smith v. State, 358 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 3d DCA), dismissed, 364 So. 2d 892 (Fla.1978).
For this reason, the defendant’s conviction of attempted sexual battery is reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Roberts v. State, 443 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…made as it was prior to the presentation of evidence, related to the defendant’s “impending failure to take the stand” rather than “his completed election not to become a witness.” State v. Turner, 433 A. 2d 397, 401 (Me.1981). See Fussell v. State, 436 So. 2d 434, 435 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (prosecutor’s question during voir [*193] dire, “Does it bother you that ... it is going to be [the victim’s] word against his word?” held comment on defendant’s failure to testify); Ramos v. State, 418 So. 2d 1302, 1303 (Fla…
Authorities Cited
- Smith v. State, 358 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)