DAVID LAVERNE ROUNDTREE, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 Florida Supreme Court denied Roundtree's petition for certiorari seeking to overturn his heroin possession conviction based on improper prosecutor commentary regarding his right to remain silent. The Court held that because Roundtree objected and the trial court sustained the objection and struck the testimony, he waived any appellate challenge by choosing to proceed with trial rather than requesting a mistrial.
The trial court did not commit reversible error because although the prosecutor improperly elicited a comment about the defendant's silence, Roundtree's contemporaneous objection and the trial court's sustaining of that objection and striking of the testimony cured any error. Roundtree waived appellate review of this issue by choosing to proceed with trial rather than requesting a mistrial at the time of the improper comment.
[1] A prosecutor's elicitation of a witness's testimony regarding a defendant's silence constitutes reversible error when it improperly comments on the defendant's exercise o…
[2] A defendant must object to an improper comment on their right to remain silent and request a mistrial to preserve the issue for appeal.
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“reversible error occurs in a jury trial when a prosecutor improperly comments upon, or elicits an improper comment from a witness concerning, the defendant's exercise of his right to remain silent”
Establishes the legal standard for reversible error regarding silence comments
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAt Roundtree's trial for possession of heroin, the prosecutor asked the arresting officer whether Roundtree made any statements, and the officer testi…
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 Improper Comment On Silence cases and more on FLexlaw
ALDERMAN, Justice.
By petition for writ of certiorari, the defendant, David Laverne Roundtree, seeks review of the decision by the District Court of Appeal, Second District, in Roundtree v. State, 350 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), which affirms his conviction for possession of heroin. To invoke the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the defendant alleges that the decision of the Second District conflicts with Bennett v. State, 316 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 1975); Bostic v. State, 332 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Shannon v. State, 335 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1976), and other cases in which convictions have been reversed because of improper comments on the defendant’s exercise of his right to remain silent. We initially accepted jurisdiction and heard argument in this case.
However, our recent decision in Clark v. State,- So. 2d-(Fla.1978), has resolved the apparent conflict. At Roundtree’s trial, the arresting officer, pursuant to questions by the prosecutor, testified as follows: Q. All right. So, he was arrested at that time?
A. That’s right.
Q. All right. Did Mr. Roundtree make any statements of any sort to you?
A. Not that I can recall.
MRS. CONDON: I would object to that question and answer by the witness and ask that it be stricken from the record. THE COURT: Sustained. Strike it from the record.
The jury is instructed to disregard it.
MR. SKYE: Okay. I have nothing else of this witness, your Honor. The Court of Appeal correctly held that there is no requirement for the trial court to treat the objection in this case as including a request for mistrial, nor is the nature of the testimony such as to elevate it to fundamental error mandating reversal. In Clark, we said that reversible error occurs in a jury trial when a prosecutor improperly comments upon, or elicits an improper comment from a witness concerning, the defendant’s exercise of his right to remain silent. In Roundtree’s trial, error occurred when the prosecutor elicited an improper comment.
However, as we pointed out in Clark, when'there is an improper comment, the defendant has an obligation to object and to request a mistrial. In the present case, Roundtree objected and asked that the improper comment be stricken from the record.
The trial court sustained the objection and granted his request. At the time the error occurred, Roundtree would have been entitled to a mistrial if he had asked for it. Alternatively, he had the right to have the trial proceed.
The trial court gave Roundtree exactly what he requested, and he is not now in a position to complain. If he wanted a mistrial when the error occurred, he should have asked for it. By allowing the trial to proceed, he waived his right to raise this issue on appeal. The apparent conflict having been resolved by our decision in Clark v. State and State v. Bostic, supra, Roundtree’s petition for writ of certiorari is denied.
It is so ordered.
ENGLAND, C. J., and BOYD, OVER-TON, SUNDBERG and HATCHETT, JJ., concur. ADKINS, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Murphy v. Int'l Robotics Sys., Inc., 710 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…e an objection at the time the remarks are made. Tyus v. Apalachicola Northern R.R. Co., 130 So. 2d 580 (Fla.1961). If the court sustains the objection there must be a motion for mistrial in order to preserve the issue on appeal. Roundtree v. State, 362 So. 2d 1347 (Fla.1978). The objection must be made at the time of the improper remarks; however, the motion for mistrial can be made later, at the close of argument, in order to give counsel time to think about whether to seek a mistrial. Ed Ricke & Sons, Inc.…
-
Thomas v. State, 599 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…ut this state. Section 90.104(l)(a) Florida Statutes, requires a timely objection in order to preserve a point for appeal. See Holley v. State, 523 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Objections which are not timely made are waived. Roundtree v. State, 362 So. 2d 1347 (Fla.1978) and Jones v. State, 360 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1978). In Crespo v. State, 379 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), cert. den., 388 So. 2d 1111 (Fla.1981), the Fourth DCA determined that it was “unable to consider” the appellant/defendant’s…
-
Early v. State, 498 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Rankin v. State, 143 So. 2d 193 (Fla.1962); see also Roundtree v. State, 362 So. 2d 1347 (Fla.1978); Puntasecca v. State, 172 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 177 So. 2d 482 (Fla.1965).…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Shannon v. State, 335 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1976)
- Bennett v. State, 316 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 1975)
- 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)
- Lucas v. State, 350 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)