ANTHONY SMITH, 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.
Anthony Smith appeals his conviction for attempted robbery and unlawful possession of a firearm. The Third District Court of Appeal reversed his conviction, finding that the prosecutor violated Florida law by improperly commenting during opening statement about credibility in a way that effectively invited Smith to testify to rebut the State's evidence, thereby infringing on his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
The court held that the prosecutor's comment amounted to an improper comment on the defendant's failure to testify in violation of Section 918.09, Florida Statutes (1969), and that such a comment could not be cured by jury instructions to disregard it. Therefore, the trial court's denial of the defendant's mistrial motions constituted an abuse of discretion.
[1] A prosecuting attorney is prohibited from commenting on the failure of an accused person to testify in his own behalf.
[2] A prosecutor's comment that the "basic issue" is whether the jury believes the victim or the defendant can constitute an impermissible comment on the defendant's failure…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“no accused person shall be compelled to give testimony against himself, nor shall any prosecuting attorney be permitted before the jury or court to comment on the failure of the accused to testify in his own behalf”
Sets forth the statutory protection under Section 918.09, Florida Statutes (1969), that the prosecutor violated
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSmith was charged with attempted robbery and unlawful possession of a firearm while engaged in a criminal offense. At trial, the prosecutor made an op…
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 Failure To Testify cases and more on FLexlaw
KEHOE, Judge.
Appellant, defendant below, brings this appeal from a judgment of conviction and sentence entered pursuant to a jury verdict for attempted robbery and unlawful possession of a firearm while engaged in a criminal offense. For the reasons set forth below we reverse.
Appellant, in one of his two points on appeal, contends that when the prosecutor, during his opening statement to the jury, made the following comment, it violated Section 918.09, Florida Statutes (1969), and his rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution:
“The basic issue, and just keep this throughout the whole trial, the basic issue in this whole case is going to be one of credibility. Do you believe Mrs. Sentz [State’s witness] or are you going to believe the Defendant [appellant]. That’s going to be the basic issue.”
Accordingly, appellant further contends that the trial court erred when it denied his motions for a mistrial based on this comment.
Section 918.09, Florida Statutes (1969), provides, among other things, as follows:
“. . no accused person shall be compelled to give testimony against himself, nor shall any prosecuting attorney be permitted before the jury or court to comment on the failure of the accused to testify in his own behalf, . .
Appellant argues that the prosecutor’s comment amounted to a challenge for him to meet the State’s evidence with his own proof of innocence and that such comment lodged within the minds of the jury the impression that he should come forward to personally rebut the State’s testimony. Appellant further argues that when he failed to meet that challenge, by exercising his right not to testify, the jury was left with the prosecutor’s direction to test the victim’s testimony against his lack of testimony, thereby, turning his right to remain silent into a fiction. Plausible as the effect attributed by appellant to the prosecutor’s statement may be, it is unnecessary for us to agree. It is sufficient that we determine the contentious statement to be one which commented on appellant’s failure to testify in his own behalf. Under the circumstances of this case, we have concluded that the statement, set forth above, made by the prosecutor did amount to a comment on the failure of appellant to testify in his own behalf. It follows that such a comment was a violation of Section 918.09, Florida Statutes (1969). However, appellee argues that the trial court gave adequate curative instructions to the jury to ignore the improper comment. We disagree with appellee’s argument. In our opinion, the statement constituted a comment on the failure of appellant to testify in his own behalf, contrary to the provision of Section 918.09, Florida Statutes (1969), and could not be cured by the trial court instructing the jury to disregard it. See, e. g., Trafficante v. State, 92 So. 2d 811 (Fla.1957); Way v. State, 67 So. 2d 321 (Fla.1953); Rowe v. State, 87 Fla. 17, 98 So. 613 (Fla.1923); and Singleton v. State, 183 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966). Consequently, the failure of the trial court to grant appellant’s motions for a mistrial, based on the improper comment, was an abuse of its discretion. Because of this determination, it is unnecessary for us to reach the constitutional aspects of this point on appeal.
Appellant’s other point on appeal, i. e., whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress a pre-trial identification, is without merit. See, e. g., Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1, 90 S.Ct. 1999, 26 L.Ed.2d 387 (1970); Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968); Settle v. State, 288 So. 2d 511 (Fla.1974); Ashford v. State, 274 So. 2d 517 (Fla.1973); and Grech v. State, 243 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971).
For the reasons set forth above, the judgment and sentence appealed are reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge, dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bell v. State, 108 So. 3d 639 (Fla. 2013)…n silent.” Id. We disagree. By asserting that Bell’s not guilty plea constituted the sum of the evidence in support of his innocence, the prosecutor impermissibly highlighted the fact that Bell did not testify on his own behalf. See Smith v. State, 358 So. 2d 1137, 1137-38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (holding that prosecutor’s comment stating that the “basic issue” in the case was whether the jury believed the State’s witness or the defendant constituted improper comment on the defendant’s failure to testify in his ow…
-
Art Crawford v. State, 662 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…onstitutions. Where a court can reach its result without resorting to constitutional grounds, it should do so. See Braggs v. State, 642 So. 2d 129, 133 n. 10 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Spradley v. State, 537 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Smith v. State, 358 So. 2d 1137, 1138 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). At this point it is not clear that the United States Supreme Court has held that the federal double jeopardy clause is violated by a state imposing multiple punishments in the context of a single prosecution. Analyzing Mis…
-
Gilbert v. State, 547 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…ant also contends that the prosecutor committed reversible error when in opening statement he said: “and basically its gonna [sic] come down to ... do I believe the defendant.” That is a comment on defendant’s right to remain silent. Smith v. State, 358 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). However, under State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986) a comment on defendant’s right to remain silent is subject to a harmless error analysis. On examination of the record in this case, with positive eyewitness identificat…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (U.S. 1968)
- Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1970)
- Russ v. State, 92 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 1957)
- Rowe v. State, 87 Fla. 17 (Fla. 1924)
- WAY v. State, 67 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1953)
- Ashford v. State, 274 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1973)
- Singleton v. State, 183 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Grech v. State, 243 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Settle v. State, 288 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)