JOHNNY DEWITT HARRIS AND ANTHONY EARL HARRIS, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE 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.
Johnny Dewitt Harris and Anthony Earl Harris were convicted of third degree murder with a firearm and armed robbery. On appeal, they challenged the admission of Anthony Harris's taped interview invoking his right to silence and other evidentiary rulings, but the court affirmed because the defendants failed to properly preserve these issues for appeal through timely objections.
The court held that defendants failed to properly preserve their appellate issues through timely objections at trial. Only Johnny Harris objected to Anthony Harris's taped interview, which does not preserve the issue because Fifth Amendment rights are personal to each defendant. Anthony Harris waived his right to challenge the admission of his statement by failing to object, and any error regarding his termination of the interview was harmless because the information had already been presented without objection and Anthony Harris failed to object to the closing argument reference.
[1] A defendant must object and move for a mistrial to preserve for appeal the error of admitting evidence that the defendant invoked the right to remain silent.
[2] The right to remain silent is personal to the defendant and an objection by a codefendant does not preserve the issue for appellate review.
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“the right to remain silent encompassed within the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination is personal to the defendant, United States v. Handley, 763 F.2d 1401 (11th Cir.1985); objection by a codefendant does not preserve the issue for appellate review.”
Establishes that Fifth Amendment rights are individual and cannot be preserved by a codefendant's objection
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohnny Dewitt Harris and Anthony Earl Harris were tried for third degree murder with a firearm and armed robbery. During trial, the state played a tap…
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 Right To Remain Silent cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
Johnny Dewitt Harris and Anthony Earl Harris appeal their convictions and sentences for third degree murder with a firearm and for armed robbery. We affirm.
Defendants assert that the trial court committed error in allowing the state to play for the jury a tape-recorded interview in which Anthony Harris invoked his right to remain silent. We reject this argument. Error committed in permitting the jury to hear this type of evidence is not fundamental, Noble v. State, 543 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); a defendant must object and move for a mistrial to preserve the error for appeal. Simpson v. State, 418 So. 2d 984 (Fla.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1156, 103 S.Ct. 801, 74 L.Ed.2d 1004 (1983); Clark v. State, 363 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 1978). Furthermore, the right to remain silent encompassed within the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination is personal to the defendant, United States v. Handley, 763 F. 2d 1401 (11th Cir.1985); objection by a codefendant does not preserve the issue for appellate review. Finding that only Johnny Harris objected to the introduction of Anthony Harris’s taped interview, we hold the issue was not properly preserved for appeal.
Next, defendants allege that the trial court erred in admitting the statement Anthony Harris made to police four hours after receiving his Miranda warnings. By failing to object to the introduction of the statement, Anthony Harris waived the right to present the issue on appeal. Handley; Simpson.
Defendants also argue that the trial court erred in permitting the interviewing officer to testify that Anthony Harris terminated the interview and in allowing the prosecutor to refer to Anthony Harris’s termination of the interview in his closing argument. This argument fails because the information in the officer’s testimony had already been presented without objection. In addition, Anthony Harris failed to object to the closing argument. M.H. v. State, 538 So. 2d 1389 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Thomas v. State, 249 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); see also Vergara v. State, 486 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Thus, any error was harmless. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986).
Finally, Anthony Harris failed to object to any of the other errors he contends the trial court committed. Vergara. We therefore affirm the convictions and sentences.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wyatt v. State, 578 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…in silent, there must be an objection and a motion for mistrial based upon the alleged error. Simpson v. State, 418 So. 2d 984 (Fla.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1156, 103 S.Ct. 801, 74 L.Ed.2d 1004 (1983); Clark, 363 So. 2d at 331; Harris v. State, 564 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), rev. denied, 576 So. 2d 287 (Fla.1990). Furthermore, any objection must be timely made during the time that the evidence is offered. Owens v. State, 349 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 1st DCA) (defendant failed to raise timely objection where…
-
Rollins v. State, 707 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…7, — L.Ed.2d - (1998); Karp v. State, 698 So. 2d 577, 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Fruetel v. State, 638 So. 2d 966, 972 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Jones v. State, 582 So. 2d 110, 111 (Fla. 3d DCA), appeal dismissed, 592 So. 2d 681 (Fla.1991); Harris v. State, 564 So. 2d 1211, 1212 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Griffin v. State, 502 So. 2d 1350, 1352 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Scott v. State, 396 So. 2d 271, 271 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Williams v. State, 305 So. 2d 45, 46 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). Rollins next argues that his habitual offender s…
-
Johnson v. State, 726 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…bi witness for the co-defendant. The point is not, however, preserved for review. Mr. Johnson’s trial counsel did not object to the testimony now complained of, and failed to join in the co-defendant’s objection to the testimony. See Hams v. State, 564 So. 2d 1211, 1212 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1990); Longo v. State, 580 So. 2d 212, 215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Smith v. State, 574 So. 2d 1195, 1196-97 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Mr. Johnson never requested that “objection by one counsel would stand as an objection by [both] defenda…
Previewing 3 of 4 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)
- Clark v. State, 363 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 1978)
- Simpson v. State, 418 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 1982)
- Fort Pierce Utils. Auth. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 459 U.S. 1156 (U.S. 1983)
- Chaparro-Almeida v. United States, 459 U.S. 1156 (U.S. 1983)
- Thomas v. State, 249 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Vergara v. State, 486 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- United States v. Handley, 763 F.2d 1401 (11th Cir. 1985)
- Noble v. State, 543 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- M.H. v. State, 538 So. 2d 1389 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)