STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
ROBERT E. STRASSER, RESPONDENT
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.
The court ordered a new trial because the prosecutor elicited testimony that the defendant exercised his right to remain silent, which was an issue not previously addressed by the lower court.
The court remanded for a new trial based on the prosecutor's elicitation of testimony regarding the defendant's right to remain silent, referencing a prior decision in State v. Burwick.
[1] A court is not required to grant relief that would be ineffectual or impossible to grant.
[2] A court should not order a new trial if the defendant would not be entitled to a different outcome on retrial due to subsequent changes in procedural rules.
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 intelligenceDuring the trial, the prosecutor elicited testimony from a state witness that the defendant, Strasser, had exercised his right to remain silent. The d…
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 Rules Of Criminal Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
EHRLICH, Justice.
This cause is before us because the decision of the district court, Strasser v. State, 420 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), directly and expressly conflicts with the decision of the Second District Court of Appeal on the same issue, Burney v. State, 402 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We approve the holding in Burney and therefore quash the holding of Strasser. Strasser was charged with and convicted of robbery in January of 1981 on evidence which supported a conviction of the completed act. The trial judge instructed on robbery, grand theft, and petty theft, but he refused to instruct on attempted robbery. It is not disputed that this refusal was reversible error at that time. In October, 1981, however, new rules of criminal procedure went into effect, In re Rules of Criminal Procedure, 403 So. 2d 979 (Fla.1981), which permit the trial court to refuse to instruct on attempt on evidence analogous to that presented in Strasser’s case. It is not disputed that these rules would control any new trial Strasser could be granted, thus he would not be entitled to the requested instruction on retrial.
On virtually identical facts, in Burney, the Second District refused to remand for new trial, noting, “We are not required to do a useless act nor are we required to act if it is impossible for us to grant effectual relief.” 402 So. 2d at 39. We agree. Strasser would gain nothing from a new trial. The only effect would be to .increase the pressures on the already overburdened judicial system and, ultimately, on the taxpayer. We will not ignore the substance of justice in a blind adherence to its forms.
Accordingly, the holding of the Second District in Burney is approved and that of the Fourth District in Strasser is quashed.
It is so ordered.
ALDERMAN, C.J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON and SHAW, JJ., concur. McDONALD, J., dissents.
EHRLICH, Justice.
Respondent, in its petition for rehearing, points out that we failed to address the second issue raised in its brief, an issue which assumes greater significance in light of our disposition of the first issue.
Respondent points out that at trial the prosecutor elicited from a state witness evidence that Strasser had exercised his right to remain silent. The defense preserved the issue for appeal by timely objection and raised it before the district court. The district court reversed and remanded for new trial on the jury-instruction issue we addressed in our original opinion, and never addressed the issue on which we now focus.
We note that, in the absence of a decision from the district court, procedural formality would suggest that we should remand to the district court for entry of a decision on the issue. However, in light of this Court’s decision in State v. Burwick, 442 So. 2d 944 (Fla.1983), such procedural nicety would merely delay the judicial process without benefiting anyone. We therefore remand for new trial on the basis of Burwick.
For the record, we note that we have considered respondent’s third point and find it to be without merit.
Thus, the decision of the district court is approved in result only and the cause is remanded for new trial.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, OVERTON, McDONALD and SHAW, JJ., concur. ALDERMAN, C.J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Zambrano v. Jegadees D. Devanesan, M.D., 484 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…explication for its decision on the record. Thus, relinquishment of jurisdiction would be a useless act in contravention of the principle that courts should “not ignore the substance of justice in a blind adherence to its forms.” State v. Strasser, 445 So. 2d 322, 323 (Fla.1983). The trial court explained its decision to grant a remittitur as to punitive damages in this fashion: The reason I say [the punitive damage award] is excessive is because the intervention of the attorney calling to the attention of…
-
Gore v. Harris, 772 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 2000)…ies and contests must be finally and conclusively determined by December 12, 2000. See 3 U.S.C. § 5. This Court is “not required to do a useless act nor are we required to act if it is impossible for us to grant effectual relief.” State v. Strasser, 445 So. 2d 322, 322 (Fla.1983). See also Hoshaw v. State, 533 So. 2d 886, 887 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (“The law does not require futile acts.”); International Fidelity Ins. Co. v. Prestige Rent-A-Car, Inc., 715 So. 2d 1025, 1028 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (“Florida law does n…
-
Smith v. State, 492 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 1986)…committing the criminal act.” State v. Burwick, 442 So. 2d 944, 947 (Fla.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 931, 104 S.Ct. 1719, 80 L.Ed.2d 191 (1984). The price society must pay for violation of this constitutional right is reversal. State v. Strasser, 445 So. 2d 322 (Fla.1983); State v. Burwick; Bennett v. State, 316 So. 2d 41 (Fla.1975). However, we recently adopted a harmless error rule for cases such as this. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986). Rather than request supplemental briefs on this issue…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In re Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 403 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 1981)
- State v. Burwick, 442 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 1983)
- Devard B. Burney v. State, 402 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Strasser v. State, 420 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)