JACK W. CLOUSER, 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 appellate court reversed a conviction for conspiracy, robbery, kidnapping, and aggravated assault because the prosecutor's comment on a co-defendant's failure to testify was prejudicial to the appellant. This decision followed a similar ruling for another co-defendant.
Yes, the prosecutor's comment on co-defendant Edward Rogers' failure to testify was prejudicial to the appellant, Jack W. Clouser, and warranted a reversal of his conviction.
“Defendant Clouser now contends on his separate appeal thnt. the comment was prejudicial to him also since it was reasonably calculated to raise a question in the jurors' minds as to his own failure to testify.”
This quote establishes the appellant's argument on appeal regarding the prejudicial effect of the prosecutor's comment.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant, Jack W. Clouser, was convicted along with co-defendants Louis Harper and Edward Rogers on charges including conspiracy, robbery, kidnap…
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 Comment On Defendant'S Failure To Testify cases and more on FLexlaw
Jack W. Clouser appeals his conviction and sentence on counts charging conspiracy, robbery, kidnapping and aggravated assault. Co-defendants Louis Harper and Edward Rogers were convicted on similar charges in the same trial.
In his closing argument the prosecutor commented on the failure of co-defendant Edward Rogers to testify. Defendant *201Clouser now contends on his separate appeal thnt. the comment was prejudicial to him also since it was reasonably calculated to raise a question in the jurors’ minds as to his own failure to testify. This question was recently decided by this court in reversing the conviction of co-defendant Louis Harper. Accordingly the conviction and sentence in the instant case are reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial. See Harper v. State, Fla.App., 2nd District, 151 So.2d 881.
Reversed.
KANNER, Acting C. J., and ALLEN and WHITE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Singleton v. State, 183 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…959, 113 So. 2d 272; Ard v. State, Fla.1959, 108 So. 2d 38; Romanello v. State, Fla.App.1964, 160 So. 2d 529. Or even to comment upon a co-defendant’s failure to testify, Harper v. State, Fla.App.1963, 151 So. 2d 881; Clouser v. State, Fla.App.1963, 152 So. 2d 200. And even if the defendant testifies as to one phase- of the case, comment cannot extend to any other phase or phases not covered by his testimony, Sykes v. State, 78 Fla. 167, 82 So. 778. And when the defendant elects not to testify, it is error to…
Authorities Cited
- Harper v. State, 151 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)