KENNETH MCCOY, 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 the shackling of a defendant's ankles during trial does not constitute reversible error if no prejudice to the defendant is demonstrated.
The defendant was required to wear leg restraints during his trial pursuant to a sheriff's policy. Defense counsel objected, but the restraints were r…
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.
SHARP, Judge.
McCoy appeals his conviction and sentence for manslaughter. The sole issue on appeal is whether the shackling of McCoy’s ankles during his trial constituted reversible error. We affirm.
At the opening of trial, defense counsel objected to McCoy’s being required to wear leg restraints. McCoy was shackled pursuant to the Orange County Sheriff’s policy that all persons charged with an offense punishable by life imprisonment must be shackled in circuit court as a security measure. The table where McCoy sat was draped and the jury was cleared from the courtroom when he was moved. The shackles were removed prior to his testifying before the jury. There was no showing in this case that the jury was aware of McCoy’s shackling.
The use of shackles to restrain a defendant at trial should rarely be employed as a security device. Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 344, 90 S.Ct. 1057, 1061, 25 L.Ed.2d 353 (1970), reh’g denied, 398 U.S. 915, 90 S.Ct. 1684, 26 L.Ed.2d 80 (1970). “[Restraints may confuse the defendant, impair his ability to confer with counsel, and significantly affect the trial strategy he,chooses to follow.” Zygadlo v. Wainwrigfit, 720 F. 2d 1221, 1223 (11th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 941, 104 S.Ct. 1921, 80 L.Ed.2d 468 (1984). They should be used only when it is necessary to deter escápe or prevent a disturbance or potential injury to people in the courtroom.
A trial court should not simply defer to the security measures set forth by the sheriff. However, “[t]he critical issue in a restraint case is the degree of prejudice caused by the restraint.” Elledge v. State, 408 So. 2d 1021, 1022-1023 (Fla.1981); cert. denied, 459 U.S. 981,103 S.Ct. 316, 74 L.Ed.2d 293 (1982); reh’g denied, 459 U.S. 1137, 103 S.Ct. 771, 74 L.Ed.2d 984 (1983). In this case, McCoy was unable to demonstrate any impairment or detriment during his one-and-a-half day trial warranting reversal.
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH and COBB, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carlisle v. State, 105 So. 3d 625 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…the court, made the decision to shackle Mr. Carlisle. The court should not blindly defer to the security measures established by the sheriff or other security official. See Jackson v. State, 698 So. 2d 1299, 1302 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); McCoy v. State, 503 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Shackling must not be done absent some showing of necessity. Bello, 547 So. 2d at 918. That did not occur here. Mr. Car-lisle’s request for a hearing should have been granted. While the trial court erred in requiring Mr. Carlis…
-
Childers v. State, 782 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…ourt need to control him. He also alleged that the appellant’s fear of the stun belt prevented him from effectively participating in his own defense. Florida acknowledges that restraints may adversely affect the defendant’s case. See McCoy v. State, 503 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). No formal hearing on the use of restraints is necessary, but where there is a total lack of a hearing, the decision should be remanded for a hearing. See Elledge v. Dugger, 823 F. 2d 1439, 1451, reh’g granted in part, 833 F. 2d…
-
Miller v. State, 852 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…Use of shackles to restrain a defendant at trial should rarely be employed as a security device; they should be used only when it is necessary to deter escape or prevent disturbance or potential injury to people in the courtroom. See McCoy v. State, 503 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 5th DCA). Nothing in the record indicates that Miller had any courtroom outbursts or otherwise demonstrated a potential escape or injury risk while in court. Miller’s prior armed robbery convictions, the most recent in 1985, are not sufficient…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (U.S. 1970)
- Elledge v. State, 408 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 1981)
- Zygadlo v. Louie L. Wainwright, 720 F.2d 1221 (11th Cir. 1983)
- Elledge v. Florida, 459 U.S. 981 (U.S. 1982)
- W. Elec. Co., Inc. v. Hill, 459 U.S. 981 (U.S. 1982)
- Bolder v. Missouri, 459 U.S. 1137 (U.S. 1983)
- Ayers v. Maine, 466 U.S. 941 (U.S. 1984)
- Smith v. Perini, 466 U.S. 941 (U.S. 1984)
- Illinois v. Allen, 398 U.S. 915 (U.S. 1970)
- Hotel v. Shultz, 398 U.S. 915 (U.S. 1970)