JOHN B. JACKSON, 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.
John B. Jackson was convicted by jury of heroin possession and sentenced to four years imprisonment. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury that Jackson had an absolute right to refuse to speak with police after invoking his right to counsel.
Yes. The trial court's refusal to instruct the jury that there is nothing wrong with exercising the constitutional right to refuse to speak with police constituted reversible error. The conviction must be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.
[1] A trial court errs by refusing to instruct the jury that a defendant has an absolute right to refuse to answer questions from law enforcement.
[2] A defendant's admission of guilt to a new offense is a sufficient basis for revoking probation.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“He stated that he wanted to talk to his lawyer first.”
This establishes that Jackson invoked his right to counsel when asked by Detective Jehle, the key fact triggering the need for the jury instruction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJackson was charged with heroin possession under the Florida Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act. At trial, Detective Jehle testified …
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 Constitutional Right To Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
BOARDMAN, Judge.
The appellant, John B. Jackson, was charged by information with possession of heroin in violation of the Florida Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act. He pled not guilty, was tried by jury, and sentenced to serve four years imprisonment with credit for time spent in jail awaiting trial. This timely appeal followed.
Appellant contends, inter alia, that the trial court erred in refusing to admon ish the jury that appellant had an absolute right to refuse to answer Detective Jehle, a witness for the state. The error complained of occurred in the following manner :
On direct examination, Detective Jehle testified as follows:
A He was advised of his rights by the Miranda warning card. I then read to him the waiver of attorney. He stated that he wanted to talk to his lawyer first.
Q So, he refused to speak to you concerning that incident ?
A At that time, yes.
MR. SCHERER: Your Honor, we would object. We would like an instruction to the Jury that there is absolutely nothing wrong with exercising your right, your Constitutional right.
THE COURT: Objection is noted.
The objection was well taken. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694. See, also, Breniser v. State, Fla.App.4th, 1972, 267 So. 2d 23, and the cases cited therein.
We submit that the failure of the trial court to advise or instruct the jury as requested by defense counsel constituted reversible error. The other question raised by appellant, which we shall discuss, pertains to the trial judge’s order revoking appellant’s probation. A previous judgment and sentence had been rendered against the appellant upon his conviction for aggravated assault. He was adjudged guilty and placed on probation for two years. At the revocation hearing, the appellant admitted that he had been found guilty of the instant offense. Whereupon, the trial judge revoked appellant’s probation and sentenced him to four years imprisonment, said sentence to run concurrently with the sentence imposed on the instant offense.
From the record before us, we conclude that the appellant’s probation was revoked solely on the basis of his conviction for the instant criminal offense.
In view of our decision reversing the case and remanding for new trial, for the reason above stated, we direct that the trial court enter an appropriate order vacating and setting aside appellant’s revocation of probation. In view of our decision herein, it is not necessary to discuss appellant’s remaining points.
Reversed and remanded for new trial.
HOBSON, A. C. J., and SCHEB, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. State, 358 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)…nviction and that his probation should be reinstated. The motion was denied without a hearing. If, as appellant alleges, his probation was revoked solely on the basis of his invalid robbery conviction, the revocation cannot stand. Jackson v. State, 314 So. 2d 175 (Fla.2d DCA 1975). The record before this court does not refute appellant’s allegations. The notes of the probation revocation hearing have not been transcribed and, for reasons unconnected with this case, a certified transcript is probably not obta…
Authorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Breniser v. State, 267 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)