ROOSEVELT PINKNEY, 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.
Court reversed defendant's conviction because officer testified to defendant's post-Miranda statement without establishing that defendant had invoked or waived his right to counsel, violating established Florida precedent on Miranda compliance.
A conviction must be reversed when a police officer testifies to a defendant's statement made after Miranda warnings without establishing that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel.
[1] Post-Miranda statements are inadmissible unless the State establishes that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel, and harmless error analy…
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 intelligenceA police officer testified that after reading the defendant his Miranda rights at the scene, the defendant made statements about having just purchased…
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 Harmless Error Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
A police officer at the trial of this criminal case, while testifying for the State, said that when he read the defendant his Miranda rights at the scene, “he (the defendant) didn’t make any statements at that time other than he had just bought it (the stolen automobile) for three hundred dollars and that he didn’t have the registration or anything like that to it.” If it were constitutionally possible we would apply the “harmless error” rule to the facts of this case and affirm. However, we feel compelled to reverse upon the authority of Jones v. State, 200 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967); Bennett v. State, 316 So. 2d 41 (Fla.1975); Farese v. State, 328 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Bostic v. State, 332 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Martin v. State, 334 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Shannon v. State, 335 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1976); Lucas v. State, 335 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Boyd v. State, 351 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 4th DCA, opinion filed November 26, 1976); Williams v. State, 340 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 4th DCA, opinion filed December 3, 1976); Collins v. State, 340 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 4th DCA, opinion filed December 10, 1976); Spann v. State, 340 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 4th DCA, opinion filed December 17, 1976); Maness v. State, 341 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 4th DCA, opinion filed December 24, 1976); Sylvester v. State, 341 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 4th DCA, opinion filed February 11, 1977).
REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial.
DOWNEY and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur.
CROSS, J.,
dissents.
I respectfully dissent on the basis that the officers comment was in clarification of his statement. Furthermore there is no possibility that the answer contributed to the conviction of the defendant. Therefore, I would affirm. .
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tsavaris v. Scruggs, 360 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 1977)…(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, 347 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) Boyd v. State, 351 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) Pinkney v. State, 351 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) Paulen v. State, 352 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) Bostic v. State, 332 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) Some decisions of the District Courts of Appeal have answered this question, "No." Nevels v. State, 351 So. 2d 762 (Fla.…
-
Tindall v. State, 395 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…ive and nothing else follows, it seems unlikely that it was asked for any purpose other than to highlight appellant’s silence. . Similar comments are characterized as improper in: Clark v. State, 336 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Pinkney v. State, 351 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Eck v. State, 354 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Knight v. State, 374 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 386 So. 2d 642 (1980).…
Authorities Cited (14 total)
- Shannon v. State, 335 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1976)
- 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)
- Lucas v. State, 335 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 1st 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)
- Collins v. State, 340 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Sylvester v. State, 341 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Farese v. State, 328 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)