STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
ALONZA ROWELL, 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 Florida Supreme Court reversed a district court decision that had vacated Rowell's burglary and theft convictions based on an alleged improper comment on his right to remain silent. The Court held that the officer's fragmented and incomplete statement, when considered in full context, was not a comment on silence and did not warrant a new trial.
The officer's testimony was not a comment on silence and was not fairly susceptible to interpretation as such. When examined in its totality and full context, the statement did not violate the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights, and the conviction should be affirmed.
[1] A fragmented statement, a phrase taken out of context, or the failure to answer a specific question while answering others is inadequate to sustain the claim that one exe…
[2] The totality of the circumstances surrounding an officer's interviews with a suspect and the full context of the officer's testimony must be considered in determining whe…
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“A fragmented statement, a phrase taken out of context, or the failure to answer a specific question while answering others is inadequate to sustain the claim that one exercised his right to remain silent.”
Establishes the standard for determining whether a defendant invoked the right to remain silent; isolated statements are insufficient.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRowell was charged with two counts of burglary of a conveyance, one count of possession of burglary tools, and one count of petit theft. During trial,…
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 Comment On Silence cases and more on FLexlaw
McDONALD, Justice.
This case involves the same certified question as State v. DiGuilio (Fla. August 29, 1985), just decided by this Court. Rowell v. State, 450 So. 2d 1226, 1228 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).
An information charged Rowell with two counts of burglary of a conveyance, one count of possession of burglary tools, and one count of petit theft. During the trial, the prosecutor asked the arresting officer if he had attempted to take a statement from Rowell after his arrest. The officer replied: “Ah, I never asked him that, I never ... I asked him, but he refused to give me any information as far as.... ” At that point defense counsel objected and moved for a mistrial. The trial court denied the objection and motion. The jury convicted Rowell as charged. The district court found the officer’s testimony to be “fairly susceptible” to interpretation by the jury as a comment on Rowell’s exercise of his right to remain silent and automatically reversed for a new trial.
An examination of the record shows that the officer’s statement was not a comment on silence or even fairly susceptible of being one. Defense counsel never allowed the witness to complete his statement. On cross-examination, however, defense counsel returned to the officer’s testimony in question:
Q. ...
Now, so, he agreed to talk to you. He didn’t refuse to talk to you out there at all; did he?
A. That’s correct.
It is clear that Rowell never exercised his right to remain silent when arrested; the officer testified to this. A fragmented statement, a phrase taken out of context, or the failure to answer a specific question while answering others is inadequate to sustain the claim that one exercised his right to remain silent. The totality of the circumstances surrounding an officer’s interviews with a suspect as well as the full context of the officer’s testimony must be considered in determining whether one’s fifth amendment right against self-incrimination was invoked. Donovan v. State, 417 So. 2d 674 (Fla.1982). On the other hand, the fact that a suspect ceased answering all further questions after answering some is a circumstance not subject to comment.
The officer’s testimony, when examined in its totality, could not be fairly susceptible of interpretation as a comment on silence. Thus, this is not a proper case to discuss the application of the harmless error rule when a witness testifies that a suspect exercised his right to remain silent.
Accordingly, the decision of the district court is quashed and the case is remanded with directions to affirm the original conviction and sentence.
It is so ordered.
OVERTON, ALDERMAN, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur. BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Marshall, 476 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 1985)…treated as harmless.” Id. at 956. We concluded that the “supervisory power of the appellate court is inappropriate when the error is harmless.” Id. Our adoption of the harmless error rule in Murray has spawned numerous cases. E.g., State v. Rowell, 476 So. 2d 149 (Fla.1985) and State v. DiGuilio (Fla.1985) no. 65,490, as well as the instant case. These cases concern extending the harmless error rule from Murray’s prosecutorial misconduct to comments on a defendant’s silence or failure to testify. The state a…
-
McKAY v. State, 504 So. 2d 1280 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…y the State from the arresting officer as quoted above. Only those comments which are “fairly susceptible” of being interpreted as a comment on silence will be treated as such. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129, 1135 (Fla.1986). In State v. Rowell, 476 So. 2d 149 (Fla.1985), the arresting officer was specifically asked whether he had attempted to take the defendant’s statement after his arrest. The officer answered, “I asked him, but he refused to give me any information as far as_” The defense then interrup…
-
Dolinsky v. State, 576 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 1991)…oncerning Dolinsky’s identity.1 The testimony of the second detective showed that Dolinsky did not, in fact, exercise his right to remain silent. We see no error here, and the trial court properly denied the motion for mistrial. See State v. Rowell, 476 So. 2d 149 (Fla.1985). Dolinsky also claims that, because any initial confusion regarding his identity existed only on the state’s part, the court erred in allowing the state’s witnesses to testify that some of them thought Bowes and Dolinsky were brothers an…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Donovan v. State, 417 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 1982)
- Alonza Rowell v. State, 450 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)