DOUGLAS MCARTHUR STUBBS, 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 court held that admitting written statements of co-defendants that inculpated the defendant, without the co-defendants testifying, constituted prejudicial error.
The defendant was convicted of rape. The trial court admitted written statements from two co-defendants that implicated the defendant, despite the def…
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 Retroactivity Of Supreme Court Decisions cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant, Douglas McArthur Stubbs, was convicted of rape and on appeal contends that the trial court committed prejudicial error by admitting into evidence the written statements of two co-defendants, which inculpated him. He avers that the error was not cured by the court’s admonishment to the jury not to consider those statements against him.
In light of Bruton v. United States, 1968, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476, we conclude that error was committed and therefore reverse.
Defendant presented a pretrial motion to suppress his co-defendants’ statements, and alternatively moved for a severance. He also made a motion to exclude references to him in the statements, but each of his motions was denied.
Upon- consideration of the Bruton decision, the admission into evidence of the co-defendants’ statements did constitute prejudicial error as to the defendant, despite the trial court’s clear and precise instruction to the jury not to consider them against him.
The rationale of Bruton is that if a co-defendant does not testify, his confession adds weight to the case against the defendant in a form not subject to cross-examination, resulting in a constitutional error, which is not avoided by a jury instruction to disregard the co-defendant’s statement as to the defendant.
By reason of the Bruton rule, our Florida Supreme Court has very recently reversed a conviction in a case procedurally similar to this one wherein confessions of both the defendant and co-defendant were admitted at trial and considered by our supreme court to be corroborating evidence. Schneble v. State, Fla.1968, 215 So.2d 611.
In light of Bruton and Roberts v. Russell, 1968, 392 U.S. 293, 88 S.Ct. 1921, 20 L.Ed.2d 1100, which holds that Bruton is applicable to a state proceeding and retroactive, we reverse and remand this cause for a new trial.
We have considered the defendant’s other points on appeal and find them without merit.
Reversed and remanded.
WALDEN, C. J., and OWEN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Garcia, 240 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1970)…, which holds that Bruton is applicable to a court proceeding and retroactive, this cause must be reversed for a new trial. See also Schneble v. State, Fla.1967, 201 So. 2d 881; Schneble v. State, Fla., 215 So. 2d 611; Stubbs v. State, Fla.App.1969, 222 So. 2d 228.” The state here asserts that the decisions below are in conflict with Hawkins v. State 4 and Schneble v. State.5 To resolve these conflicts and to clarify any inconsistency in the reliance by the District Court on the case of Stubbs v. State 6 to…1 / 2
-
Garcia v. State, 226 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…, which holds that Bruton is applicable to a court proceeding and retroactive, this cause must be reversed for a new trial. See also Schneble v. State, Fla.1967, 201 So. 2d 881; Schneble v. State, Fla., 215 So. 2d 611; Stubbs v. State, Fla.App.1969, 222 So. 2d 228. Reversed and remanded for new trial.…
-
Jones v. State, 227 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)…F. 2d 296. See also Wapnick v. United States, 2 Cir. 1969, 406 F. 2d 741, and Chapman v. State of California, 1967, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705. . See also Schneble v. State, Fla.1968, 215 So. 2d 611. . Stubbs v. State, Fla.App.1969, 222 So. 2d 228.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1968)
- Roberts v. Russell, 392 U.S. 293 (U.S. 1968)
- Schneble v. State, 215 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 1968)