CHARLES JAMES MOORE AND MORRIS MOORE, APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 1973-04-17
Nos. 72-323, 72-324
OWEN and MAGER, JJ., concur., CROSS, J., dissents.
276 So. 2d 504 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1973) Positive Treatment
Cited by 8 cases
Topics
Right To Be Heard Harmless Error

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Right To Be Heard cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Based upon our review of the briefs, the record on appeal and having heard oral argument, we are of the opinion that no reversible error has been demonstrated. The judgment and conviction is therefore affirmed. We would, however, observe that although the defendant’s testimony was of a sufficient nature as to fully present to the jury his version of the incident which formed the gravamen of the criminal charge, it was error for the trial court to refuse to permit the defendant to testify as to whether he committed the crime for which he was charged. While we deem this to have been harmless error in light of defendant’s other testimony we would observe that it is basic to a defendant’s “right to be heard” to be able to testify as to whether he did or did not commit the crime for which he was charged. (Art. I, Sec. 16, Declaration of Rights, Const. of Fla., F.S.A.). Cf. Rowe v. State, 1935, 120 Fla. 649, 163 So. 22. Compare with Deeb v. State, 1937, 131 Fla. 362, 179 So. 894.

Affirmed.

OWEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.

CROSS, J., dissents.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Hall v. The Honorable Thomas D. Oakley, 409 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
    …ions in all courts of this state. Deeb v. State, 131 Fla. 362, 179 So. 894 (1937).. “[I]t is basic to a defendant’s ‘right to be heard’ to be able to testify as to whether he did or did not commit the crime for which he was charged.” Moore v. State, 276 So. 2d 504 (Fla.2d DCA 1973). In view of these fundamental and long-accepted constitutional principles, we conclude that the petitioner’s argument is suited for review by certiorari. It might also be argued, although the state has not done so, that the petiti…
  • Cutter v. State, 460 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
    …tional principle. Hall v. Oakley, 409 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Art. I, § 16, Fla. Const.; see also, Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975); United States v. Ives, 504 F. 2d 935 (9th Cir.1974); Moore v. State, 276 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). Unlike the right to forego assistance of counsel and certain other rights, however, the right to testify is not so fundamental and personal that it can only be waived by the defendant; it may be waived by the defendant’s attorne…
  • Raydo v. State, 696 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
    …nded for new trial. MINER, ALLEN and MICKLE, JJ., concur. . Hall v. Oakley, 409 So. 2d 93, 95 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied 419 So. 2d 1200 (Fla.1982) ("Inasmuch as the right to testify on one's behalf is a fundamental right, (see Moore v. State, [276 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)]), we conclude against requiring that a defendant must testify in order to preserve his or her argument for appellate review.”), disapproved on other grounds, State v. Page 449 So. 2d 813 (Fla.1984). . Article 1 section 16 of th…

Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw