JOHNNY LEE THOMAS, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed defendant's robbery conviction because prosecutor improperly elicited and commented upon defendant's post-arrest silence, violating his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
Comments on an accused's exercise of the right to remain silent constitute reversible error regardless of harmless error analysis.
[1] Any prosecutorial comment upon an accused's exercise of the right to remain silent constitutes reversible error without application of harmless error doctrine.
Previewing 1 of 1 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“any comment upon an accused's exercise of his right to remain silent is reversible error without regard to the harmless error doctrine”
Court establishing the controlling legal principle that governs prosecutorial comments on defendant silence
Johnny Lee Thomas was convicted of robbery and sentenced to ten years in the state penitentiary. During cross-examination, the prosecutor elicited tes…
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 Impeachment By Silence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant, Johnny Lee Thomas, appeals his conviction for robbery and ten-year sentence to the state penitentiary.
Defendant-appellant first contends the trial court erred in allowing the prosecutor to elicit testimony during the cross-examination of the defendant that while the defendant was in custody he remained silent and did not offer exculpatory statements to the police and further erred in permitting the prosecution to comment to the same effect during closing argument to the jury thereby violating defendant’s privilege against self-incrimination. We find this point has merit.
The principle of law is now established that any comment upon an accused’s exercise of his right to remain silent is reversible error without regard to the harmless error doctrine. Bennett v. State, 316 So. 2d 41 (Fla.1975); Shannon v. State, 335 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1976). This legal principle has recently been interpreted to the point where it is now considered a deprivation of due process to allow the accused’s silence at the time of arrest to be used to impeach the accused’s explanation subsequently offered at trial. See Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976); Davis v. State, 342 So. 2d 987 (Fla.3d DCA, released this same day).
We, therefore, reverse the defendant’s conviction and sentence and remand the cause to the trial court for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Porter v. State, 356 So. 2d 1268 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…st to impeach his explanation subsequently offered at trial. See Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976); Davis v. State, 342 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Smith v. State, 342 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Thomas v. State, 342 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). “The prosecutor’s cross-examination of the defendant concerning the defendant’s pretrial silence was improper and, accordingly, defendant’s convictions and sentences are reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court for a n…
-
Thompson v. State, 386 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…t’s remaining silent or refusing to testify in the face of accusation is an error of constitutional dimension requiring a new trial without consideration of the doctrine of harmless error. Shannon v. State, 335 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1976); Thomas v. State, 342 So. 2d 991 (Fla.3d DCA 1977). In the case at bar, when Officer Fleites questioned Thompson as to how he knew the car in question was a four-speed (in that Fleites had not previously mentioned that fact), Thompson became belligerent and refused to talk any fur…
-
Dereck Cunningham v. State, 404 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…ate, 335 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1976); Bennett v. State, 316 So. 2d 41 (Fla.1975); Peterson v. State, 405 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Watkins v. State, 363 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Martin v. State, 356 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Thomas v. State, 342 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 353 So. 2d 679 (Fla.1977); Smith v. State, 342 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.250. We find a second and independent grounds .for reversal in the failure to instruct the jury on the maximum and mini…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (U.S. 1976)
- Shannon v. State, 335 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1976)
- Bennett v. State, 316 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 1975)
- Davis v. State, 342 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)