ROBERT BROWN, APPELLANT,
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.
Florida appellate court reversed Brown's cocaine trafficking conviction because the prosecution improperly cross-examined him and argued about his post-arrest silence, violating his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.
Prosecution's cross-examination and closing argument commenting on a defendant's invocation of Miranda rights and post-arrest silence violates the Fifth Amendment and requires reversal even when the State concedes error.
[1] Prosecution's cross-examination and argument commenting on a defendant's post-arrest silence and invocation of Miranda rights violates the Fifth Amendment and requires re…
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 intelligence“Our cases have made clear that courts must prohibit all evidence or argument that is fairly susceptible of being interpreted by the jury as a comment on the right of silence.”
State v. Smith standard for evaluating prosecutorial comments on silence
Robert Brown was arrested at the scene with contraband cocaine. He invoked his right to remain silent under Miranda and never waived it during the fou…
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 Protection Against Self-Incrimination cases and more on FLexlaw
Robert Brown appeals his conviction and sentence for trafficking in cocaine, asserting as error the State’s cross-examination of Brown at trial and later closing argument, questioning why he waited until trial — four years after the date of the crime — to divulge the name of the alleged actual , owner of the contraband. Because Brown invoked his.right to remain silqnt, pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona,1 when he was arrested at the scene of the crime and never waived that right during the ensuing four years, we find, as the State has admirably conceded, that the prosecution’s questioning and argument were in error arid shifted the burden of proof to Brown to prove his innocence: See State v. Smith, 573 So.2d 306, 317 (Fla.1990) (“Our cases have made clear that courts must prohibit all evidence or argument that is fairly susceptible of being interpreted by the jury as a comment on the right of silence.”); see also, U.S. Corist. amend. V (“No Person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself’); Art. I, § 9, Fla. Const. (“No person shall ... be compelled in any criminal matter to be a witness • against oneself.”). We note that in this regard, we have considered the State’s harmless error argument and are unable to conclude the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1135 (Fla.1986).
Reverséd and remanded for a new trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Knight v. State, 225 So. 3d 661 (Fla. 2017)…effective for raising a meritless claim. This Court has repeatedly recognized the concept that courts must prohibit all evidence or argument that may be interpreted by the jury as a comment on the defendant’s right to remain silent. Brown v. State, 197 So. 3d 569 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (citing State v. Smith, 573 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 1990)). Based on its interpretation of article I, section 9 of the Florida Constitution, the court in Hoggins held that a prosecutor may not comment upon or attempt to impeach a defend…
-
Melvis v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- State v. Smith, 573 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 1990)