CARL SHINGLEDECKER, 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 admission of a video tape containing a comment on the defendant's right to remain silent, even if erroneous, constituted harmless error because the defense counsel invited the error by initially stating no objection.
The defendant was convicted of DUI and driving with a suspended license. During the trial, the state sought to publish a video tape of conversations w…
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 Invited Error cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Carl Shingledecker was convicted of driving under the influence and driving while his license was suspended. He raises two points on appeal, but only one merits discussion.
During the trial, the state requested permission to publish a video tape for the jury that included conversations appellant had with the officers while at the scene. Appellant’s counsel stated, “No objection, Your Honor.” After the video tape was played, defense counsel objected to its publication on grounds that the tape contained a comment on appellant’s right to remain silent because it depicted his request for an attorney and that its admission constituted fundamental error. Appellant’s statement on the video tape amounted to a comment on his right to remain silent. See Jackson v. State, 522 So. 2d 802, 807 (Fla.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 871, 109 S.Ct. 183, 102 L.Ed.2d 153 (1988). However, we hold that the admission of the tape, when viewed in the light of the evidence presented at trial, constituted harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129, 1139 (Fla.1986). Furthermore, defense counsel invited the error by stating that appellant had no objection to the publication of the video tape to the jury. A party may not invite error at trial and then be heard to complain of that error on appeal. See Norton v. State, 709 So. 2d 87, 94 (Fla.1997); Terry v. State, 668 So. 2d 954, 962 (Fla.1996); Czubak v. State, 570 So. 2d 925, 928 (Fla.1990). Accordingly, we affirm appellant’s convictions.
AFFIRMED.
DELL, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jewel Grier v. State, 934 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…right to remain silent will be treated as such. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129, 1135 (Fla.1986). Admission of a defendant’s statement requesting an attorney amounts to a comment on the defendant’s right to remain silent. Shingledecker v. State, 734 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Comments on silence are high risk errors because there is a substantial likelihood that such comments will vitiate the right to a fair trial. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d at 1136. Unless the state can show harmless error, a comment on t…
-
Kinser Lydell Brown v. State, 825 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Shingledecker v. State, 734 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). STONE, GROSS, and MAY, JJ., concur.…
-
Mack v. State, 58 So. 3d 354 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…comment on the defendant’s right to remain silent will be treated as such. Id. at 1135. Comments on a defendant’s request for an attorney have been considered a comment on the exercise of the right to remain silent. See e.g., Shingledecker v. State, 734 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). The due process clause of the Florida Constitution, Article I, section 9, guards against comments on a defendant’s post-arrest silence regardless of whether Miranda warnings have been given. See State v. Hoggins, 718 So. 2d 761…
Previewing 3 of 7 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)
- Terry v. State, 668 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 1996)
- Thompson v. Louisiana, 488 U.S. 871 (U.S. 1988)
- Czubak v. State, 570 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 1990)
- Norton v. State, 709 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 1997)
- Jackson v. State, 522 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 1988)