BROOMER DABNEY
v.
STATE
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.
Broomer Dabney was convicted of murder in the second degree after being jointly tried with his mother, who was acquitted. On appeal, he challenged the admission of his confessions as involuntary and the prosecutor's comments about his testimony, but the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.
The court held no reversible error in admitting the confessions because the trial court conducted a full and fair examination and found them admissible, and because Dabney later testified that his confessions were true. The court also held that once a defendant voluntarily takes the stand to testify, the prosecutor may comment on his testimony, including discrepancies and the reasonableness of his statements, just as with any other witness.
“the trial court, after a full and fair examination of the witnesses in this regard, held the confessions admissible and on authority of the opinion and judgment of this Court in the case of Harrison v. State, 110 Fla. 420, 148 Sou. 882, and authorities there cited, we hold that no reversible error is made to appear.”
Establishes the court's holding regarding the admissibility of confessions and deference to trial court's factual determinations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBroomer Dabney was jointly indicted and tried with his mother for first-degree murder. His mother was acquitted, but Dabney was convicted of murder in…
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
Broomer Dabney was jointly indicted and tried with his mother for the offense of murder in the first degree. The woman was acquitted. Broomer Dabney was convicted of murder in the second degree.
On review here it is contended that the court below committed reversible error in admitting in' evidence oral and written confessions of the defendant, Broomer Dabney, on the ground that the confessions were not freely and voluntarily made, but were procured by unlawful coercion.
The evidence as to whether or not the confessions were freely and voluntarily made is conflicting, but the trial court, after a full and fair examination of the witnesses in this regard, held the confessions admissible and on authority of the opinion and judgment of this Court in the case of Harrison v. State, 110 Fla. 420, 148 Sou. 882, and authorities there cited, we hold that no reversible error is made to appear.
Aside from this, however, the record shows that the defendant took the stand in his own behalf and while testifying he stated that the confessions which he had made were true; he stated that he did not know what was written down for him to sign, but what he then testified to, which was intended to be written down, was the truth and it is uncontradicted that the statement was written as he gave it.
It is further contended that the judgment should be reversed because of the comment of the State’s Attorney on the failure of the defendant to testify as to his whereabouts *343on the night of the homicide. The settled rule is that if a defendant declines to become a witness in his own behalf then the prosecuting attorney shall not comment on such course being taken by the defendant. In other words, the failure of the defendant to testify cannot be taken or considered as any admission against his interest; but, if a defendant voluntarily takes the stand and testifies as a witness in his own behalf, then he becomes subject to cross examination as any other witness and the prosecuting officer has the right to comment on his testimony, his manner and demeanor on the stand, the reasonableness or unreasonableness of his statements, and on the discrepancies which may appear in his testimony to the same extent as would be proper with reference to testimony of any other witness.
For the reasons stated, the judgment should be affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Ellis, P. J., and Terrell, J., concur.
Whitfield, C. J., and Davis, J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Flowers v. State, 152 Fla. 649 (Fla. 1943)…evidence against the party making it. See Williams v. State, 143 Fla. 826, 197 So. 526; Clay v. State, 143 Fla. 204, 196 So. 462; Smith v. State, 135 Fla. 835, 186 So. 203; Cawthon v. State, 118 Fla. 394, 159 So. 366; Dabney v. State, 119 Fla. 341, 161 So. 380; Harrison v. State, 110 Fla. 420, 148 So. 882; Nickels v. State, 90 Fla. 659, 106 So. 479; Green v. State, 40 Fla. 191, 23 So. 851; McNish v. State, 47 Fla. 69, 36 So. 176; Sims v. State, 59 Fla. 38, 52 So. 198; Williams v. State, 48 Fla. 65, 37 So.…
-
Oba Chandler v. State, 848 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 2003)…k about all the things he wouldn’t talk about and didn’t say.”18 Taken in context, we do not believe that this brief comment by the prosecutor was an unfair or improper comment on defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights. In Dabney v. State, 119 Fla. 341, 161 So. 380 (1935), the Court stated: The settled rule is that if a defendant declines to become a witness in his own behalf, then the prosecuting attorney shall not comment on such course being taken by the defendant. In other words, the failure of the defend…
-
Clay v. State, 143 Fla. 204 (Fla. 1940)…ithout fear, hope of reward and promise of escaping punishment, or some other illegal influence, the same is properly admitted. See Smith v. State, 135 Fla. 835, 186 So. 203; Cawthon v. State, 118 Fla. 394, 159 So. 366; Dabny v. State, 119 Fla. 341, 161 So. 380; Harrison v. State, 110 Fla. 420, 148 So. 822; Nickels v. State, 90 Fla. 659, 106 So. 479; Green v. State, 40 Fla. 191, 23 So. 851; McNish v. State, 47 Fla. 69, 36 So. 198; Sims v. State, 59 Fla. 38, 52 So. 198; Williams v. State, 48 Fla. 65, 37 So.…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Harrison v. State, 110 Fla. 420 (Fla. 1933)