JOHN EDWARD SHANNON ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
JOHN EDWARD SHANNON ET AL., PETITIONERS,
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
335 So. 2d 5
Florida Supreme Court (1976)
Negative Treatment
Cited by 473 cases
Topics
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Reversible Error cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion of the Court
By the Court:
The First District Court of Appeal, in a 2-1 decision, has held that comments on petitioners’ right to remain silent which were made during closing remarks to a jury by a legal intern prosecuting these cases for the state “bordered on error, but the trial court’s instruction was .enough to render the remarks as harmless.” 320 So. 2d 855, 856. That decision conflicts with our more recent decision in Bennett v. State, 316 So. 2d 41 (Fla.1975), where we held that any comment on an accused’s exercise of his right to remain silent is reversible error, without regard to the harmless error doctrine.
The decision of the district court is reversed on the basis of Bennett, and the case is remanded with instructions to vacate the judgment of the trial court and grant petitioners a new trial.
OVERTON, C. J., and ADKINS, ENGLAND, SUNDBERG and HATCHETT, JJ., concur. ROBERTS, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (221 total)
-
State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)…e harmless error rule as set forth in United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499, 103. S.Ct. 1974, 76 L.Ed.2d 96 (1983), receded by implication from the per se rule of reversal explicated in Donovan v. State, 417 So. 2d 674 (Fla.1982); Shannon v. State, 335 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1976); and Bennett v. State, 316 So. 2d 41 (Fla.1975)? DiGuilio v. State, 451 So. 2d 487, 491 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We answer the certified question in the affirmative and apply the harmless…1 / 3
-
Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)…e determination of parties’ equities in a lump sum alimony award. The term “special equity” should not be used when considering lump sum alimony; rather, it should be used only when analyzing a vested property interest of a spouse. See Ball v. Ball, 335 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1976); Eakin v. Eakin; Heath v. Heath. In granting lump sum alimony,, the trial court should be guided by all relevant circumstances to ensure “equity and justice between the parties.” § 61.08, Fla. Stat. This Court recognized in Yandell v. Ya…
-
Clark v. State, 363 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 1978)…ly, evidence of post-arrest silence is improper because it violates the defendant’s right against self-incrimination. If properly preserved for appeal through objection, the admission of such testimony constitutes reversible error. Shannon v. State, 335 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1976); Bennett v. State, 316 So. 2d 41 (Fla.1975). In the present cases, we must consider the effect of the defendant’s failure to object. This issue was not decided in Shannon, Bennett or Willinsky v. State, 360 So. 2d 760 (Fla.1978), filed A…
Previewing 3 of 221 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bennett v. State, 316 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 1975)
- Shannon v. State, 320 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)