WILLIE JOE GADSON, 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.
The court held that the admission of police testimony identifying a recorded statement from the defendant's accomplice was harmless error.
Willie Joe Gadson was convicted of robbery. On appeal, he argued that the trial court erred by admitting police testimony identifying a recorded state…
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 Joint Trials cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant-appellant, Willie Joe Gadson, was tried by a jury and convicted of robbery.
On appeal, he contends that the trial court committed reversible error in admitting the testimony of police officers relative to the identification of a recorded statement taken from the defendant’s accomplice.
To support his contention, appellant relies primarily upon Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968), wherein the U. S. Supreme Court held that in a joint trial a confession of a codefendant who fails to take the stand cannot be introduced into evidence. The Bruton case can be distinguished factually from the case sub judice in that there is no joint trial, the recorded statement of the defendant’s accomplice was merely identified but not introduced into evidence, and the testimony of police officers, not a confession of a codefendant, is the subject of concern. Therefore, we reject Bruton as binding.
Moreover, where, as in the case sub judice, evidence of guilt is overwhelming, a violation of Bruton is harmless error. Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969).
We hold that the testimony of the police officers with regard to the identification of the statement taken from defendant’s accomplice, if error, was harmless error in light of the fact that the evidence of guilt was ample and compelling. See Williams v. State, Fla.App. 1971, 243 So.2d 215 and cases cited therein.
No reversible error having been demonstrated, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Natividad Pabon v. State, 522 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427, 92 S.Ct. 1056, 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972); Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969); Gadson v. State, 277 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973).…
Authorities Cited
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1968)
- Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250 (U.S. 1969)
- Williams v. State, 243 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)