McCoy v. State, 86-897
| Decision Date | 12 February 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-897,86-897 |
| Citation | 503 So.2d 371,12 Fla. L. Weekly 498 |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 498 Kenneth McCOY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Charles B. Tiffany, Kissimmee, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Margene A. Roper, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.
McCoy appeals his conviction and sentence for manslaughter. The sole issue on appeal is whether the shackling of McCoy's ankles during his trial constituted reversible error. We affirm.
At the opening of trial, defense counsel objected to McCoy's being required to wear leg restraints. McCoy was shackled pursuant to the Orange County Sheriff's policy that all persons charged with an offense punishable by life imprisonment must be shackled in circuit court as a security measure. The table where McCoy sat was draped and the jury was cleared from the courtroom when he was moved. The shackles were removed prior to his testifying before the jury. There was no showing in this case that the jury was aware of McCoy's shackling.
The use of shackles to restrain a defendant at trial should rarely be employed as a security device. Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 344, 90 S.Ct. 1057, 1061, 25 L.Ed.2d 353 (1970), reh'g denied, 398 U.S. 915, 90 S.Ct. 1684, 26 L.Ed.2d 80 (1970). "[R]estraints may confuse the defendant, impair his ability to confer with counsel, and significantly affect the trial strategy he chooses to follow." Zygadlo v. Wainwright, 720 F.2d 1221, 1223 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 941, 104 S.Ct. 1921, 80 L.Ed.2d 468 (1984). They should be used only when it is necessary to deter escape or prevent a disturbance or potential injury to people in the courtroom.
A trial court should not simply defer to the security measures set forth by the sheriff. However, "[t]he critical issue in a restraint case is the degree of prejudice caused by the restraint." Elledge v. State, 408 So.2d 1021, 1022-1023 (Fla.1981); cert. denied, 459 U.S. 981, 103 S.Ct. 316, 74 L.Ed.2d 293 (1982); reh'g denied, 459 U.S. 1137, 103 S.Ct. 771, 74 L.Ed.2d 984 (1983). In this case, McCoy was unable to demonstrate any impairment or detriment during his one-and-a-half day trial warranting reversal.
AFFIRMED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cassidy v. McNeil
...shackles.[5] (See excerpt of trial transcript, attached as Exhibit A). Therefore, the use of restraints was valid. See McCoy v. State, 503 So.2d 371 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Any viewing of these restraints by the jury pool was inadvertent and, quite frankly, questionable. FN 1 Furthermore, the ......
-
Jackson v. State, 96-1291
...not blindly defer to security measures established by the sheriff or other official performing security functions. See McCoy v. State, 503 So.2d 371 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Bello v. State, 547 So.2d 914 (Fla.1989), established the requirement that a hearing on necessity precede the decision to......
-
Miller v. State
...used only when it is necessary to deter escape or prevent disturbance or potential injury to people in the courtroom. See McCoy v. State, 503 So.2d 371 (Fla. 5th DCA). Nothing in the record indicates that Miller had any courtroom outbursts or otherwise demonstrated a potential escape or inj......
-
Childers v. State
...participating in his own defense. Florida acknowledges that restraints may adversely affect the defendant's case. See McCoy v. State, 503 So.2d 371 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). No formal hearing on the use of restraints is necessary, but where there is a total lack of a hearing, the decision should......