ANDREW ROBERTS, A/K/A ANDRES SMITH, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Andrew Roberts' burglary conviction was reversed because the prosecutor's opening statement comment that there was evidence the defendant "will not be able to explain" was impermissibly susceptible to interpretation as a comment on the defendant's right to remain silent, violating his Fifth Amendment rights.
The prosecutor's opening statement comment was fairly susceptible of being interpreted by the jury as referring to the defendant's exercise of his right to remain silent, and therefore the trial court's failure to grant the defendant's timely motion for mistrial constitutes reversible error without regard to the harmless error doctrine.
[1] A prosecutor's comment in an opening statement that the defendant will be unable to explain a piece of evidence linking him to the crime is susceptible to interpretation…
[2] A prosecutor's comment on a defendant's impending failure to take the stand, rather than a completed election not to testify, can still constitute an impermissible commen…
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“the prosecutor's comment in his opening statement to the jury, namely, "... but there is one piece of evidence that will be presented that he will not be able to explain and that will be the evidence that links that defendant to the crime as charged," was, without doubt, fairly susceptible of being interpreted by the jury as referring to the defendant's exercise of his right to remain silent”
The court's identification and analysis of the impermissible prosecutorial comment at issue
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAndrew Roberts was charged with burglary of a structure. During opening statements, the prosecutor stated that there was evidence that would be presen…
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 Burglary Of A Structure cases and more on FLexlaw
DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge.
The defendant’s conviction for burglary of a structure is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial upon a holding that the prosecutor’s comment in his opening statement to the jury, namely, “... but there is one piece of evidence that will be presented that he will not be able to explain and that will be the evidence that links that defendant to the crime as charged,” was, without doubt, fairly susceptible of being interpreted by the jury as referring to the defendant’s exercise of his right to remain silent, see Samosky v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (Case No. 82-2614, opinion filed November 15, 1983), and cases cited therein, regardless of its susceptibility to a different construction, Trafficante v. State, 92 So. 2d 811 (Fla.1957); Bain v. State, 440 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), and notwithstanding that the comment, 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 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. 3d DCA 1982) (prosecutor’s comments during voir dire “implying that defendant’s testimony might have incriminated her, when considered in light of the fact that she did not take the stand, was clearly amenable to interpretation by the jury as referring to her failure to testify.”); Smith v. State, 358 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 3d DCA), dismissed, 364 So. 2d 892 (Fla.1978) (prosecutor’s opening statement comment that the basic issue is whether the jury is going to believe the State’s witness or the defendant amounts to comment on defendant’s later failure to testify); Manofsky v. State, 354 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) (prosecutor’s remark, apparently made in opening statement, that the testimony may be different if the defendant testifies is comment on defendant’s later failure to testify).
Accord, Clark v. State, 256 Ark. 658, 509 S.W. 2d 812, 815 (1974) (prosecutor’s opening statement comment that the story about what happened will come from the defendant results in “pre-evidentiary coercion which is just as forbidden as post evidentiary comment”).
Accordingly, the trial court’s failure to grant the defendant’s timely motion for mistrial is reversible error without regard to the harmless error doctrine. Harris v. State, 438 So. 2d 787 (Fla.1983); Donovan v. State, 417 So. 2d 674 (Fla.1982); David v. State, 369 So. 2d 943 (Fla.1979). Because the defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal based on his contention that the evidence was insufficient was properly denied, the cause is Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Grissom v. State, 469 So. 2d 151 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…failure to testify constitutes reversible error, and the harmless error doctrine does not apply. Harris v. State, 438 So. 2d 787 (Fla.1983); David v. State, 369 So. 2d 943 (Fla.1979); Trafficante v. State, 92 So. 2d 811 (Fla.1957); Roberts v. State, 443 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), review denied, 450 So. 2d 489 (Fla.1984); Samosky v. State, 448 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), review denied, 449 So. 2d 265 (Fla.1984). We find that the trial court’s comment in the present case was fairly susceptible of being i…
-
Andres v. State, 468 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…red even if the statement could be deemed harmless. Harris v. State, 438 So. 2d 787 (Fla.1983); Donovan v. State, 417 So. 2d 674 (Fla.1982); David v. State, 369 So. 2d 943 (Fla.1979); Trafficante v. State, 92 So. 2d 811 (Fla.1957); Roberts v. State, 443 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), rev. denied, 450 So. 2d 489 (Fla.1984); Brown v. State, 427 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 438 So. 2d 834 (Fla.1983). Because we do not find the evidence of the defendant’s guilt so overwhelming as to render harmless the…
Authorities Cited
- Russ v. State, 92 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 1957)
- Harris v. State, 438 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 1983)
- David v. State, 369 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 1979)
- Donovan v. State, 417 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 1982)
- Smith v. State, 358 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Bain v. State, 440 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Manofsky v. State, 354 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Green v. State, 436 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Donnie Fussell v. State, 436 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)