NEY
v.
MCCAIN, APPELLANT, V. 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.
The court held that while prosecutorial comment on a defendant's failure to testify is improper, it was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt in this case.
The prosecutor twice commented on the appellant's failure to testify during closing arguments. The trial court warned that the comments were close to …
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 Prosecutorial Comment On Failure To Testify cases and more on FLexlaw
[*190] HALL, Judge.
This case involves prosecutorial comment upon appellant’s failure to testify. Twice in his closing argument the prosecutor directed the jury’s attention to such fact. Upon objection by appellant, the trial court warned that the comments came “close” to being impermissible.
In that the state has met its burden of showing the comments to be harmless beyond reasonable doubt, we are bound by United States v. Hastings, 461 U.S. 499, 103 S.Ct. 1974, 76 L.Ed.2d 96 (1983); State v. Marshall, 476 So. 2d 150 (Fla.1985); and State v. Murray, 443 So. 2d 955 (Fla.1984), to apply the harmless error doctrine.
Although we affirm the conviction, we note that in State v. Murray, the Florida Supreme Court suggested disciplinary investigation of such overzealous and errant prosecutors. Prosecutorial misconduct such as in the instant case would otherwise go uncurbed. Prosecutors should not be permitted to violate defendant’s constitutional rights with impunity.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499 (U.S. 1983)
- State v. Murray, 443 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 1984)
- State v. Marshall, 476 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 1985)