THEOPHILE GRIEVE, 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 Fourth District affirmed Grieve's manslaughter conviction, holding that the trial judge's correct instruction on the defendant's right to remain silent during voir dire, without objection, does not constitute error and is distinguishable from cases where prosecutors improperly devalue that right.
A trial judge's correct recitation of a defendant's right to remain silent at trial during voir dire, given without objection, is not error even if the prosecutor later references that right in response to a juror's statement.
[1] A trial judge's correct instruction on a defendant's right to remain silent during voir dire is not error, and a prosecutor's reference to such instruction in response to…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGrieve was convicted of manslaughter. At the beginning of voir dire, the trial judge extensively and correctly stated the law regarding a defendant's …
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 Standard Jury Instructions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm appellant’s conviction for manslaughter. This case is distinguishable from Varona v. State, 674 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). In this case, at the beginning of the voir dire, the trial judge correctly and extensively stated the law regarding a defendant’s right to remain silent at trial. Appellant did not object to any part of the court’s explanation. As the supreme court indicated in Andrews v. State, 443 So. 2d 78, 84 (Fla. 1983), the trial judge’s recitation of correct instructions on a defendant’s right to remain silent at trial, such as those contained at Florida Standard Jury Instruction (Criminal) 1.01, is not error, even when given over the objection of a defendant. See Rosa v. State, 696 So. 2d 1299, 1301 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). The prosecutor’s reference to the right to remain silent during voir dire was in response to a potential juror’s statement that he would “probably have to hear from the defense and see if it was an accident case or how the shooting occurred.” In response to this assertion, the prosecutor referred to the trial judge’s earlier remarks without misstating the law. Unlike Varona, this is not a case where the prosecutor first broached the issue of the defendant’s right to remain silent during voir dire, in a way that tended to devalue the right by “innuendo or faint praise.” 674 So. 2d at 825.
AFFIRMED.
DELL, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marston v. State, 136 So. 3d 563 (Fla. 2014)…ddress Marston’s claim that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. . “Unlike Varona, this is not a case where the prosecutor first broached the issue of the defendant’s right to remain silent during voir dire....” Grieve v. State, 731 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).…
-
Owens v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2026)
-
Owens v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2025)
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
- Lucious Andrews, Jr. v. State, 443 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1983)
- Varona v. State, 674 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Rosa v. State, 696 So. 2d 1299 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)