ROOSEVELT THOMAS, 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.
Roosevelt Thomas was convicted of robbery and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment. On appeal, the court reversed his conviction because the prosecutor improperly stated during voir dire and opening statement that an alleged accomplice had been convicted, which prejudiced Thomas's right to a fair trial.
The court held that the prosecutor's statements regarding the co-defendant's conviction were improper and prejudiced Thomas's right to a fair and impartial trial. Accordingly, the conviction must be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.
“As a general rule, it is improper for a prosecuting attorney to disclose during trial that another defendant had been convicted or has pleaded guilty. This is because competent and satisfactory evidence against one person charged with an offense is not necessarily so against another person charged with the same offense.”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that prosecutors cannot disclose co-defendant convictions because evidence sufficient for one defendant is not necessarily sufficient for another
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRoosevelt Thomas was tried by jury for robbery and convicted, receiving a 20-year sentence. During voir dire, when asked whether accomplices had been …
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 Prejudicial Remarks cases and more on FLexlaw
Roosevelt Thomas was found guilty of robbery after a jury trial and was sentenced to 20 years in the State Pentientiary. He has appealed his conviction and sentence. The only point presented on appeal urges that he was deprived of a fair trial by statements made by the prosecuting attorney during the voir dire examination and the repetition of these statements to the jury in the opening statement by the State. In each instance the appellant moved for a mistrial which was denied. Error is assigned upon the denial of the motions for mistrial.
It was agreed in the record between the trial court, the assistant state’s attorney and defense counsel that when asked by a venireman whether the accomplices had been *884excused from the charge of robbery the prosecutor said, “No, they have been convicted.” Subsequently, the assistant state’s attorney again told the jury that Roy Lee Baker, an alleged accomplice, had been convicted on his own trial.
We think that it is important to note that although objections were made to the statements, no rulings on the objections were made in the presence of the jury. Further, no instructions were given regarding the legal significance of the conviction of the co-defendants.
As a general rule, it is improper for a prosecuting attorney to disclose during trial that another defendant had been convicted or has pleaded guilty. This is because competent and satisfactory evidence against one person charged with an offense is not necessarily so against another person charged with the same offense. Each person charged with the commission of an offense must be tried upon evidence legally tending to show his guilt or innocence. See State v. Gargano, 99 Conn. 103, 121 A. 657 (1923); Gray v. State, 221 Md. 286, 157 A. 2d 261 (1960); Cameron v. State, 153 Tex. Cr.R. 29, 217 S.W.2d 23; Annotation, 48 A.L.R.2d 1017.
In Moore v. State, Fla.App.1966, 186 So. 2d 56, a case strikingly similar to the instant one, the court announced to the jury, as an explanation for a recess during the trial, that the co-defendant had entered his plea of guilty. This Court reversed and said that the announcement by the court to the jury that the co-defendant had plead guilty to the charge prejudiced the appellant’s right to a fair and impartial trial.
The announcement by the state’s attorney in the instant case, that the co-defendant had been convicted on his own trial, could have no other effect than to prejudice the defendant’s right to a fair and impartial trial. Therefore, the instant case must be reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Ferguson v. State, 417 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 1982)…of a “fair reply” which is permissible in this instance. See Brown v. State, 367 So. 2d 616 (Fla.1979). Viewed in this context, the comment on Francois’ guilt was not sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a mistrial in this case. Cf. Thomas v. State, 202 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967) (prosecutor told jury of accomplice’s conviction during voir dire and again during trial); and Moore v. State, 186 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966) (judge announced co-defendant’s guilty plea to jury as explanation for recess during t…
-
Salvatore v. State, 366 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 1978)…ebuttal testimony regarding Murren’s guilt and sentence was improper since no prior testimony was thereby rebutted. As a general rule, it is improper for the State to disclose during trial that another defendant had been convicted. Thomas v. State, 202 So. 2d 883 (Fla.3d DCA 1967). The case sub judice presents an exception to this rule. During the examination of Dobar-ganes by defense counsel, the following occurred: “Q. All right; what did you say to him? What did you say to Larry Murren and what did Larr…
-
Parker v. State, 458 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 1984)…’s advising the jury that Elaine Parker, appellant’s ex-wife and a participant in the sequence of events giving rise to the murders, had pleaded guilty to one count of second-degree murder pursuant to a plea bargain. Appellant cites Thomas v. State, 202 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967), and Moore v. State, 186 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966), as holding that revealing a co-felon’s conviction or entry of a guilty plea was impermis-sibly prejudicial to the fairness of the trial. We agree in principle with Judge Pears…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Moore v. State, 186 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)