WALTER RAGLAND, 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.
The court held that prosecutorial comments on a defendant's post-arrest silence are permissible if the defendant has not invoked their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
The defendant was charged with conspiracy and attempted murder, convicted of conspiracy, and sentenced. The defendant appealed, arguing the trial cour…
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 Conspiracy To Commit Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
Appellant, defendant below, was charged by information with conspiracy to commit murder and attempted murder. A jury returned verdicts finding appellant guilty of conspiracy, but not guilty of attempted murder. The court adjudged appellant guilty and sentenced him to ten (10) years probation with a special condition that he serve five (5) years in the State Penitentiary-
Appellant’s sole point on appeal is directed to the trial court’s denial of various motions for mistrial. Appellant argues that motions for mistrial should have been granted upon repeated prosecutorial comments on appellant’s post-arrest silence. We disagree.
While we are fully aware of the restrictions placed upon prosecutors on commenting upon a defendant’s exercise of his or her constitutional right to remain silent, Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976); Bennett v. State, 316 So. 2d 41 (Fla.1975), the record before us conclusively demonstrates that appellant never invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Rather, the record reveals that after being given his Miranda warnings, appellant freely and voluntarily conversed with the police. During this post-Miranda lengthy conversation, appellant refused to answer one question of many. We do not believe that comment, upon the failure to answer a single question was violative of appellant’s constitutional right, when said constitutional right was not invoked. See Williams v. State, 353 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Kellerman v. State, 353 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Miller v. State, 343 So. 2d 1292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); see also United States v. Fairchild, 505 F. 2d 1378 (5th Cir. 1975).
Accordingly, appellant’s conviction and sentence are affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Hudson v. State, 992 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 2008)…; Downs v. Moore, 801 So. 2d 906, 911-12 (Fla.2001) (holding that the State is not precluded from admitting evidence of defendant’s refusal to answer one question of many where defendant has not invoked his Fifth Amendment rights); Ragland v. State, 358 So. 2d 100, 100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (holding that where defendant waived his Fifth Amendment rights and freely and voluntarily conversed with police, comment on the failure to answer one question of many is not a violation of the defendant’s right to remain sil…
-
Downs v. Moore, 801 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 2001)…n out of many during a lengthy interrogation following the defendant’s waiver of his constitutional rights, the State is not precluded from subsequently admitting evidence of the defendant’s silence at trial. See id. at 801 (citing Ragland v. State, 358 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)). In the instant case, the State’s question obviously was intended to impeach Downs and demonstrate to the jury that Downs’ version of events was concocted sometime after his arrest. This questioning would be inappropriate under…
-
Valle v. State, 474 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 1985)…sed his right to remain silent.” 417 So. 2d at 675. Appellant refused to answer one question of the many that were asked of him after he had been given his Miranda warnings and had freely and voluntarily waived them. Similarly, in Ragland v. State, 358 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 365 So. 2d 714 (Fla.1978), the accused declined to answer one question of many. The court reasoned: While we are fully aware of the restrictions placed upon prosecutors on commenting upon a defendant’s exercise of his o…
Previewing 3 of 14 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)
- Bennett v. State, 316 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 1975)
- United States v. Alton R. Fairchild, 505 F.2d 1378 (5th Cir. 1975)
- Williams v. State, 353 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Miller v. State, 343 So. 2d 1292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Kellerman v. State, 353 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)