State v. Jones

Decision Date22 November 1967
Docket NumberNo. 36440,36440
Citation204 So.2d 515
PartiesSTATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. John Edward JONES, Respondent.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Fred T. Gallagher, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.

Varon, Stahl & Perlin, Hollywood, for respondent.

WHITE, Circuit Judge (Retired).

The State, by petition for writ of certiorari, seeks review of a ruling of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, reversing a judgment of conviction entered upon jury verdict finding defendant, respondent here, guilty of murder in the first degree, with a recommendation of mercy.

The Court of Appeal, one judge dissenting, ruled that the verdict could not stand because of improper comments by the State Attorney regarding defendant's failure to testify. See Jones v. State, Fla.App.1967, 197 So.2d 308.

One of the defenses in the trial court was a plea of not guilty of reason of insanity. Several medical experts testified, some called by the State and others called by defendant, but defendant did not take the stand.

The State Attorney made this comment in his argument to the jury:

'These are the acts and conduct of the defendant.

'And you look--and you look at these witnesses who have testified there on the witness stand and you ask yourself: Is there any doubt in my mind that this guy knew what he was doing?

'Now where is the evidence that says that he didn't know what he was doing?

* * *

* * *

'Sure he had an impressive psychosis. Sure he had this feature of mental disease or he had that feature of mental disease, but he knew what he was doing was wrong.

'Now how in the world have they shown to you gentlemen by any witnesses that he did not--that he did not know at the time know what he was doing was wrong? Where is the testimony that came from the stand?'

The Court of Appeal ruled that, notwithstanding the failure of defendant's counsel to object to the remark prior to the verdict, the trial judge should have declared a mistrial on the spot and that his failure to do so nullified the verdict.

The decision of the Court of Appeal conflicts with principles stated by this Court in Gray v. State, 42 Fla. 174, 28 So. 53, and Clinton v. State, 56 Fla. 57, 47 So. 389.

In the Gray case the accused introduced several witnesses in his behalf, but did not take the stand himself. The prosecutor made this comment to the jury:

'Gentlemen of the jury, the evidence as it stands before you, unexplained and uncontradicted although it does not point positively to this defendant, is sufficient to warrant you in finding him guilty.'

In holding that the remark was not improper this Court said:

'We think the prosecuting officer could comment on the evidence as it existed before the jury, avoiding any reference to the failure of the defendant himself to explain or contradict what had been introduced.'

In the Clinton case two defendants were on trial. It appears from the Court's opinion that at least one witness was called by defendants, although neither defendant testified. The comment of the prosecutor was to the effect that certain testimony was uncontradicted, or stood uncontradicted and undenied. In rejecting the contention that the comment referred to the failure of the accused to testify this Court said:

'The pre-existing right of the state to argue the character of the evidence adduced by it has not been taken away by the statute permitting the accused to be a witness and forbidding the state to comment upon his failure to accept that privilege. The state still has the right to direct the attention of the jury to that portion * * * which is without conflict. Testimony may in a sense be contradicted in various ways, as by inherent improbability, by cross-examination, or by the demeanor of the testifier. So long as the state does not exercise its preexisting right, so as to make it directly or covertly a comment upon the failure of the accused to voluntarily become a witness, the law is not violated.'

Respondent argues that these cases have been overruled by Way v. State, Fla.1953, 67 So.2d 321; Trafficante v. State, Fla.1957, 92 So.2d 811; Gordon v. State, Fla.1958, 104 So.2d 524; Singleton v. State, Fla.App.1966, 183 So.2d 245; and Flaherty v. State Fla.App.1966, 183 So.2d 607. In addition, the Court of Appeal cites Tolliver v. State, Fla.App.1961, 133 So.2d 565.

Upon examination it will be seen that these decisions are to be distinguished by the circumstances present in each and that none are in conflict with the Gray and Clinton cases. In addition, compare Davis v. State, 90 Fla. 317, 105 So. 843, 844; Carlile v. State, 129 Fla. 860, 176 So. 862; Ard v. State, Fla.1959, 108 So.2d 39; Diecidue v. State, Fla.1961, 131 So.2d 7; and King v. State, Fla.1962, 143 So.2d 458. If one desires to pursue the subject further many cases will be found in an exhaustive annotation under the title 'Comment or Argument by Court or Counsel that Prosecution Evidence is Uncontradicted as Amounting to Improper Reference to Accused's Failure to Testify,' 14 A.L.R.3d 723.

In making a comparison with previous decisions on the subject, it is important to analyze the prosecutor's argument in the light of the circumstances in each case. In the case now before the Court, the remark by the State Attorney:

'These are the acts and conduct of the defendant.', immediately followed a review by the State Attorney of the circumstances of the crime and defendant's relation to it. In the full context of the argument the remark would not be understood as referring to the failure of defendant to testify in the trial then in progress.

One of the defenses was the plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. Several experts testified on the subject, some on behalf of the State and others for the defendant. The State Attorney prefaced his next statement with:

'* * * and you look at those witnesses who have testified * * *'

Obviously the argument now challenged was addressed to the 'evidence as it existed before the jury' and not 'to the failure of defendant to explain or contradict what had been introduced.' Hence, the argument was within permissible bounds. Nothing has been found indicating that this Court has modified principles announced in the Gray and Clinton cases and no sound reason has been given why it should do so now.

Adverting now to the failure of defendant's counsel to object in the trial court until after rendition of the verdict of guilty, respondent calls attention to the rule stated in Gordon v. State, supra, as follows:

'Ordinarily improper remarks of counsel to the jury can be remedied by appropriate instructions by the trial judge. Consequently under ordinary circumstances such inappropriate remarks will not be reviewed by an appellate court unless timely objection is made in the lower court. This rule, however, is subject to the exception that if the improper remarks Are of such character that neither rebuke nor retraction may entirely destroy their sinister influence then on appeal they may be considered as error even in the absence of an objection in the trial court.' (Emphasis added.)

The rule and its exception were similarly stated in Carlile v. State, supra. As thus stated, the Court was paraphrasing the original pronouncement of the exception to the rule as follows:


To continue reading

Request your trial
135 cases
  • Porter v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • March 7, 1978 taxing already overburdened judicial resources are thereby discouraged and the cause of justice advanced. State v. Jones, 204 So.2d 515 (Fla.1967). Nonetheless, we have been reluctant for good reason to create an absolute rule which would preclude appellate review in those rare ca......
  • Darden v. Wainwright, 79-566 Civ-T-H.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • May 8, 1981
    ...of contemporaneous objection afforded an "additional" basis for denying relief, citing by footnote reference its decision in State v. Jones, 204 So.2d 515 (Fla.1967).5 Ratcliff v. Estelle, 597 F.2d 474 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 868, 100 S.Ct. 143, 62 L.Ed.2d 93 (1979), present......
  • O'Berry v. Wainwright
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • February 11, 1977
    ...v. State, Fla.App.1968, 211 So.2d 862; New v. State, Fla.App.1968, 211 So.2d 35; Dodd v. State, Fla.App.1970, 232 So.2d 235; State v. Jones, Fla.1967, 204 So.2d 515; 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals, sec. 68; Rule 3.190(h), FRCrP. Except where fundamental error is involved, and we find none to exist her......
  • Budman v. State, 77-1210
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • October 3, 1978 deny appellant's motion for a mistrial based on the comment. See Parks v. Wainwright, 429 F.2d 1240 (5th Cir. 1970); State v. Jones, 204 So.2d 515 (Fla.1967); Clinton v. State, 56 Fla. 57, 47 So. 389 (1908); Gray v. State, 42 Fla. 174, 28 So. 53 (1900); White v. State, 348 So.2d 368 (Fla......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT