JOSEPH ANTHONY CICCARELLI, 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.
Ciccarelli challenges his conviction based on alleged Miranda violations in the admission of a statement at trial. The court affirms the conviction, finding any error in admitting the statement harmless under the DiGuilio test, while certifying to the Florida Supreme Court an important question about appellate review procedures for harmless error claims.
The trial court did not err in refusing to grant a mistrial. Although there is a serious question as to the admissibility of the statement, any error in admitting it was harmless under the DiGuilio test. The court affirmed the conviction while certifying the harmless error review procedure question to the Florida Supreme Court.
[1] A trial court's admission of a statement in violation of Miranda rights may constitute harmless error if the error did not contribute to the verdict.
[2] Appellate courts must determine whether an error in admitting evidence was harmless by considering the totality of the circumstances.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Although we agree that there is a serious question as to the admissibility of the statement, we believe that under the test set out in State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986), any error in admitting the statement was harmless.”
Establishes the court's holding that despite Miranda concerns, the error was harmless and did not warrant reversal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Ciccarelli was tried and convicted. During trial, a statement made by appellant was admitted into evidence. Ciccarelli challenged the admiss…
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 Appellate Review Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
ANSTEAD, Judge.
We have reviewed the record and have concluded that the trial court did not err in refusing to grant a mistrial on the grounds that a statement made by appellant was admitted at trial in violation of appellant’s rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Although we agree that there is a serious question as to the admissibility of the statement, we believe that under the test set out in State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986), any error in admitting the statement was .harmless. See also State v. Dellorfano, 128 N.H. 628, 517 A. 2d 1163 (1986).
In determining that the error involved herein was harmless we have relied extensively upon the review of the evidence set out in the parties’ briefs and our own internal review process by which the court’s legal staff directly examines the trial court record to be certain that the court is presented with an accurate description of the evidence. Each judge on the panel has not independently read the record in its entirety. While we are confident that this review has been both complete and accurate, we are concerned as to whether our review is in accord with the holding in Holland v. State, 503 So. 2d 1250 (Fla.1987), which appears to hold that it is the duty of each appellate judge to read the entire trial court record before determining whether trial error may be harmless.
Our primary concern is that we comply with the supreme court’s directions in resolving a harmless error claim by the state. At the same time, however, we must acknowledge some concern for the sheer amount of judicial time that will be required if, indeed, each judge must read the entire record before harmless error may be found. While the record is not especially lengthy in the present case, we must note that a claim of harmless error is raised in the vast majority of criminal appeals and our ability to manage an already staggering caseload will certainly be affected by a requirement that each judge read the entire record. Notwithstanding our concerns we will, of course, rigorously apply the standard of review mandated by the supreme court. We certify the following question as one of great public importance: IS IT NECESSARY, IN EVALUATING AN ASSERTION OF HARMLESS ERROR IN A CRIMINAL APPEAL, THAT EACH APPELLATE JUDGE INDEPENDENTLY READ THE COMPLETE TRIAL RECORD?
Accordingly, we affirm appellant’s conviction.
DOWNEY, J., concurs.
STONE, J., concurs specially with opinion.
STONE, Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur because, in my judgment, there was no Miranda violation and therefore no error in admitting the testimony. United States v. Gay, 774 F. 2d 368 (10th Cir.1985). However, if Miranda warnings were required, then the error in admitting the evidence should not be considered harmless. The harmless error test in DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986), applies to improper comments by the State or a witness, and not to the admission of involuntary or coerced statements. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967) (Stewart, J., concurring). I do agree with that portion of the opinion concerning the certified question.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ciccarelli v. State, 531 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 1988)…BARKETT, Justice. This case is before us on the following question certified in Ciccarelli v. State, 508 So. 2d 52, 53 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987): Is it necessary, in evaluating an assertion of harmless error in a criminal appeal, that each appellate judge independently read the complete trial record? We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. To amplify t…
-
Kinchen v. State, 531 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 1988)…independently read the complete trial record? Id. at 51. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. In the companion case of Ciccarelli v. State, 531 So. 2d 129 (Fla.1988), we have answered the same question. See Ciccarelli v. State, 508 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (posing same certified question). Accordingly we quash the decision below and remand for reconsideration in light of our decision in Ciccarelli. We confine our review to the issue certified by the district court, and thus do not…
-
Kinchen v. State, 508 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See State v. Marshall, 476 So. 2d 150 (Fla.1985); Lusk v. State, 446 So. 2d 1038 (Fla.1984); and McCray v. State, 416 So. 2d 804 (Fla.1982). As we recently did in Ciccarelli v. State, 508 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), we certify the following as a question of great public importance: IS IT NECESSARY, IN EVALUATING AN ASSERTION OF HARMLESS ERROR IN A CRIMINAL APPEAL, THAT EACH APPELLATE JUDGE INDEPENDENTLY READ THE COMPLETE TRIAL RECORD? [*5…
Authorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967)
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- United States v. GAY, 774 F.2d 368 (10th Cir. 1985)
- Holland v. State, 503 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 1987)