DARRYL MONTGOMERY, 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.
Darryl Montgomery appeals his conviction for sale of cocaine and accessory after the fact to robbery with a firearm, arguing the trial court committed fundamental error by conducting a colloquy regarding his right to testify in the jury's presence. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that although the trial court erred in not removing the jury during the colloquy, the error did not rise to fundamental error level given overwhelming evidence of guilt and proper jury instructions.
Although the trial court erred in conducting the colloquy in the jury's presence rather than outside their hearing, this error did not constitute fundamental error because the jury received proper instructions not to view the defendant's decision not to testify as an admission of guilt, and the evidence of guilt was overwhelming.
[1] A trial court is not required to conduct a colloquy with a defendant regarding their decision not to testify.
[2] If a trial court chooses to conduct a colloquy concerning a defendant's waiver of the right to testify, it should do so outside the presence of the jury.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“A trial court is not required to make a record inquiry concerning a defendant's waiver of the right to testify. Torres-Arboledo v. State, 524 So.2d 403, 411 n. 2 (Fla.1988). If the court chooses to make such an inquiry, however, it should do so outside the presence of the jury.”
Establishes the legal standard that while colloquy is not required, if conducted it must be outside jury's presence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAfter the defense rested its case, the trial court conducted an on-the-record inquiry in front of the jury confirming that Montgomery had decided not …
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 Waiver Of Right To Testify cases and more on FLexlaw
Darryl Montgomery appeals from the judgment and sentence entered after a jury found him guilty of the sale of cocaine and accessory after the fact to robbery with a firearm. Montgomery argues that the trial court committed fundamental error by conducting a colloquy, in the jury’s presence, regarding his right to testify and by asking defense counsel to advise Montgomery to refrain from disruptive behavior during the State’s closing argument. We disagree and affirm, but we write to address the colloquy issue.
After the defense rested, the following exchange took place before the jury:
THE COURT: I do need [defense counsel] to confirm with your client that it’s his decision not to testify.
Mr. Montgomery, as I’m sure you know, you have the right to testify. You also have the right to remain silent and not testify, but I need to know that it’s your decision not to testify in the trial. [MONTGOMERY]: No, sir, I would not like to testify.
THE COURT: Okay. For the record then he’s indicated it’s his decision not to testify.
The jury was later instructed as follows: “The defendant has exercised a fundamental right by choosing not to be a witness in this case. You must not view this as an admission of guilt or be influenced in any way by his decision.” Montgomery was convicted, and this appeal ensued.
A trial court is not required to make a record inquiry concerning a defendant’s waiver of the right to testify. Torres-Arboledo v. State, 524 So.2d 403, 411 n. 2 (Fla.1988). If the court chooses to make such an inquiry, however, it should do so outside the presence of the jury. See Gill v. State, 632 So.2d 660, 663 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (Parker, J., concurring) (encouraging trial courts to conduct colloquy regarding right to testify and stating “[t]his address to a defendant, of course, must be out of *639the hearing of the jury”), rev’d, on other grounds, Oisorio v. State, 676 So.2d 1863 (Fla.1996).
We conclude that although the trial court’s failure to remove the jury before conducting the colloquy was in error, it did not rise to the level of fundamental error in this case. The jury instructions reminded the jurors that Montgomery had chosen not to testify and instructed them not to view his exercise of that right as an admission of guilt. Moreover, the evidence of Montgomery’s guilt was overwhelming. Thus, it cannot be said that the guilty verdict could not have been obtained without the assistance of the error. Cf. Robards v. State, 112 So.3d 1256, 1271 (Fla.2013) (holding prosecutor’s improper comments during closing argument did not constitute fundamental error where evidence of defendant’s guilt was overwhelming). We trust that in future cases the trial court will conduct the colloquy outside the presence of the jury.
AFFIRMED.
SAWAYA and BERGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kidd v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
Authorities Cited
- Torres-Arboledo v. State, 524 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 1988)
- Robards v. State, 112 So. 3d 1256 (Fla. 2013)
- Gill v. State, 632 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)