TOMMY LEE CARTER, 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 appellate court reversed a conviction because the prosecution improperly used the defendant's assertion of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination as evidence at trial. This violated the established rule that a defendant cannot be penalized for invoking their constitutional privilege.
No, it is impermissible to penalize an individual for exercising their Fifth Amendment privilege when under police custodial interrogation. The prosecution cannot use the fact that a defendant stood mute or claimed their privilege in the face of accusation at trial.
[1] A prosecutor may not introduce evidence at trial that a defendant invoked their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination after arrest.
[2] Testimony regarding a defendant's refusal to discuss their reasons for being in a particular location with police, after being advised of their rights, constitutes an imp…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Once again we feel compelled to reverse a judgment and sentence of conviction because the prosecution transgressed appellant’s rights at trial by adducing testimony at trial that appellant invoked his Fifth Amendment privileges after being arrested and refused to talk to the police.”
Establishes the primary reason for reversal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was arrested near a robbery scene and questioned by police about his presence. He stated he had a good reason but preferred not to discu…
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 Prosecutorial Comment On Silence cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
Once again we feel compelled to reverse a judgment and sentence of conviction because the prosecution transgressed appellant’s rights at trial by adducing testimony at trial that appellant invoked his Fifth Amendment privileges after being arrested and refused to talk to the police.
After being arrested at the scene the police advised appellant of his constitutional rights. He was then asked what he was doing hiding on a canal bank in close proximity to the scene of the robbery and near some of the incriminating physical evidence. Appellant responded that he had a good reason to be there but preferred not to discuss it with the police. The arresting officer testified to the foregoing conversation without objection. Nevertheless, we think this is fundamental error. Jones v. State, 200 So. 2d 574 (Fla.3d DCA 1967).
This is but another variation of the rule laid down by the Supreme Court of Florida in Bennett v. State, 316 So. 2d 41 (Fla.1975). See also Jones v. State, 200 So. 2d 574, above; Bostic v. State, 332 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), and Martin v. State, 334 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). The state argues that the Bennett rule is not applicable because appellant did not stand mute— he did talk to the police. We reject this contention. Appellant told the police he had a good reason for being there but would tell them nothing further. In other words, he chose to stand on his Fifth Amendment privilege. As the Court stated in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 468 (note 37), 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1625, 16 L.Ed.2d 694:
“In accord with our decision today, it is impermissible to penalize an individual for exercising his Fifth Amendment privilege when he is under police custodial interrogation. The prosecution may not, therefore, use at trial the fact that he stood mute or claimed his privilege in the face of accusation.” (Emphasis added.)
Accordingly, the judgment and sentence appealed from are reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.
WALDEN and CROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Willinsky v. State, 360 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 1978)…574 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967); Bennett v. State, supra; Shannon v. State, supra; Martin v. State, 334 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Lucas v. State, 335 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Farese v. State, 328 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Carter v. State, 335 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Bostic v. State, 332 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Mansfield v. State, 338 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) and Davis v. State, 342 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). The decision of the District Court in the case sub judice conflic…
-
Tsavaris v. Scruggs, 360 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 1977)…330 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), Cert. denied, Fla., 339 So. 2d 1172 Martin v. State, 334 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) Boyd v. State, 335 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) Williams v. State, 335 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) Carter v. State, 335 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) Collins v. State, 340 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) Woulard v. State, 340 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) Spann v. State, 340 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) Maness v. State, 341 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) Webb v. State,…
-
Porter v. State, 356 So. 2d 1268 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…. 3d DCA 1977); Sylvester v. State, 341 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Spann v. State, 340 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Woulard v. State, 340 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Collins v. State, 340 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Carter v. State, 335 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Williams v. State, 335 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Martin v. State, 334 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Bostic v. State, 332 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Jones v. State, 200 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967). . Gillian v. St…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Bennett v. State, 316 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 1975)
- Jones v. State, 200 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Martin v. State, 334 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Bostic v. State, 332 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Am. Emp'rs Ins. Co. & Snead Constr. Corp. v. J. H. Atkins & Assocs., Inc., 332 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)