Jackson v. State
| Citation | 34 So. 243,45 Fla. 38 |
| Parties | JACKSON v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 24 March 1903 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Error to Criminal Court of Record, Hillsborough County; Walter S Graham, Judge.
Wills Jackson was convicted of burglary, and brings error. Reversed.
Syllabus by the Court
1. Chapter 4400, p. 162, of the Acts of 1895, forbids the state's counsel to comment on the failure of the accused to testify in his own behalf. Such comment constitutes reversible error, even though it be made in desclaiming the intention to agrue certain conclusions therefrom, and not in urging such argument.
COUNSEL Wall & Hampton, for plaintiff in error.
William B. Lamar, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The plaintiff in error did not testify as a witness upon his trial in the court below for burglary. A state witness had identified him when brought before her as the man whom she found in her room at night, and testified to the fact upon the witness stand. Commenting upon this testimony, the attorney assisting the state in the prosecution in his argument to the jury said: 'There was no denial of that accusation then, and there is none now.' This was objected to by the defendant's counsel as in violation of the provision in chapter 4400, p. 162, Acts 1895, that no prosecuting attorney shall 'be permitted before the court or jury to comment on the failure of the accused to testify in his own behalf.' This objection was sustained as to the words 'and there is none now,' whereupon the attorney for the state disclaimed any intention of referring to the failure of the defendant to testify, and against the objection of the defendant's counsel, was permitted, at some length, to make an explanation of his position to the jury, in which, among other things, he said
The effect of this was to call to the attention of the jury the fact that the failure of the defendant to testify might be used as an argument along the various lines suggested, and while the reference thereto was made in good faith in negativing such a purpose, rather than in pursuing it, it was none the less violative of the statute above mentioned. The prohibition of the statute is not limited to philippics against the prisoner based upon his failure to testify, but extends to any comment upon such failure. There may be some circumstances where...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. DiGuilio
...on the failure of the accused to testify. It is from the 1895 legislative act that the Rowe line of cases sprung. In Jackson v. State, 45 Fla. 38, 34 So. 243 (1903), this Court reversed a conviction because of a prosecutor's comment on an accused's failure to testify. In so doing, we ground......
-
Com. v. Richmond
...State v. Williams, 11 S.D. 64, 75 N.W. 815; Showalter v. Indiana, 84 Ind. 562; State v. Payne, 131 Mich. 474, 91 N.W. 739; Jackson v. State, 45 Fla. 38, 34 So. 243; State Stoffels, 89 Minn. 205, 94 N.W. 675; State v. Snyder, 182 Mo. 523, 82 S.W. 12; Barnard v. State, 48 Tex. Cr. R. 111, 86 ......
-
Commonwealth v. Richmond
...v. Williams, 11 S. D. 64, 75 N. W. 815;Showalter v. Indiana, 84 Ind. 562;State v. Payne, 131 Mich. 474, 91 N. W. 739;Jackson v. State, 45 Fla. 38, 34 South. 243;State v. Stoffels, 89 Minn. 205, 94 N. W. 675;State v. Snyder, 182 Mo. 523, 82 S. W. 12;Barnard v. State, 48 Tex. Cr. R. 111, 86 S......
-
Gordon v. State
...for it. The Legislature made the rule and we must follow it, at least until the Legislature changes it. As early as Jackson v. State, 45 Fla. 38, 34 So. 243, this court recognized that the prosecuting officer would not be permitted comment on the failure of an accused to take the witness st......