ART CRAWFORD, JR., PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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 answered a certified question of great public importance regarding whether the harmless error doctrine applies to Fifth Amendment violations involving witness testimony of a defendant's right to silence. The Court held that harmless error analysis can apply, but only under a stringent standard requiring the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect the verdict.
The harmless error doctrine may be applied to Fifth Amendment violations regarding a defendant's right to silence, but the state bears the burden of proving harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellate court must focus on whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error affected the verdict, not merely whether sufficient evidence supported the conviction.
[1] A signed release-date letter from the Department of Corrections, written under seal, can authenticate an attached Crime and Time Report for admissibility as a public reco…
[2] Comments on a defendant's silence during trial constitute constitutional error that violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“May the harmless error doctrine be applied to cases in which a witness's testimony violated a defendant's right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment?”
States the certified question of great public importance that prompted this review
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCrawford was a defendant whose Fifth Amendment rights were implicated by witness testimony. The Fourth District Court of Appeal certified for review t…
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 Fifth Amendment Right To Remain Silent cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Crawford v. State, 473 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). In that decision, the district court certified the following question as being of great public importance:
May the harmless error doctrine be applied to cases in which a witness’s testimony violated a defendant’s right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment?
Id. at 701. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We have answered the certified question affirmatively in State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986). Accordingly, we quash the decision below and remand with instructions that the Fourth District Court of Appeal review the record in its entirety and determine whether the impermissible comment was in fact harmless in accordance with the standard expressed in DiGui-lio:
The [harmless error] test must be conscientiously applied and the reasoning of the court set forth for the guidance of all concerned and for the benefit of further appellate review. The test is not a sufficiency-of-the-evidence, a correct result, a not clearly wrong, a substantial evidence, a more probable than not, a clear and convincing, or even an overwhelming evidence test. Harmless error is not a device for the appellate court to substitute itself for the trier-of-fact by simply weighing the evidence. The focus is on the effect of the error on the trier-of-fact. The question is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error affected the verdict. The burden to show the error was harmless must remain on the state. If the appellate court cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect the verdict, then the error is by definition harmful.
Id. at 1139.
It is so ordered. McDonald, C.J., and BOYD, OVER-TON and SHAW, JJ., concur. EHRLICH and BARKETT, JJ., concur specially with opinions.
ADKINS, J., dissents.
EHRLICH, Justice,
concurring specially.
I concur because this case is controlled by State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986), for the reasons expressed in the dissenting opinion therein.
BARKETT, Justice,
concurring specially.
I concur because this case is controlled by State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986). I agree, however, with Justice Adkins’ opinion in that case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rodriguez v. State, 753 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 2000)…hall and our earlier decision in White v. State, 377 So. 2d 1149 (Fla.1979). See Dean v. State, 690 So. 2d 720, 724 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Crawford v. State, 473 So. 2d 700, 702 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (Glickstein, J., specially concurring), quashed, 491 So. 2d 1142 (Fla.1986). In White, referring to the testimony of the eyewitness in closing argument, the prosecutor said, “You haven’t heard one word of testimony to contradict what she has said, other than the lawyer’s argument.” 377 So. 2d at 1150 (emphasis su…
-
Dean v. State, 690 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…acceptable in White v. State, 377 So. 2d 1149 (Fla.1979). This was previously pointed out by Judge Glickstein in his special concurrence in Crawford v. State, 473 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (Glickstein, J., concurring), quashed on other grounds, 491 So. 2d 1142 (Fla.1986). Until White and Marshall are harmonized, prosecutors would do well to stay clear of any closing argument remarks that could be fairly susceptible to interpretation as a comment on defendant’s constitutional right to remain silent. . The…
-
Grady Lunde Lewis v. State, 654 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…p or did you force him to keep going?” Answer, “No, it was stopped.” This was a direct comment on the right to remain silent that was not invited by cross examination. Crawford v. State, 473 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), reversed on other grounds, 491 So. 2d 1142 (Fla.1986). On any retrial, this comment should be avoided. Reversed and remanded for a new trial. DELL, C.J., and HERSEY, J., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Art Crawford, Jr. v. State, 473 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)