State v. Retherford
| Decision Date | 22 November 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 42562,42562 |
| Citation | 270 So.2d 363 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Billy Eugene RETHERFORD, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Michael M. Corin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, for respondent.
The District Court of Appeal, First District, has certified that its opinion in this cause, reported at 265 So.2d 80 (1st D.C.A.Fla.1972), passes upon a question of great public interest. Article V, § 4(2), Florida Constitution, F.S.A. The State's petition for writ of certiorari was granted, and we have heard oral argument.
The facts are not in dispute. Several youths participating in a large 'open' party remained behind at the host's house after most of the celebrants had departed. Two of these youths, Retherford and a girl, found themselves alone in a bedroom. Subsequently, the girl alleged that Retherford had forced sexual acts upon her. When the matter came to trial, the girl testified that she had been beaten and choked; that she had screamed; that she had been penetrated. Some of the other youths offered testimony tending to corroborate her story.
At that point in the trial, Retherford denied that she had resisted his advances. He also denied choking her or penetrating her vagina. Thereupon, the State proceeded to impeach his testimony by examining him, over objection, concerning a pre-trial statement he had given to a deputy sheriff to the effect that he had achieved penetration. The trial court overruled Retherford's objection to the statement without ascertaining whether or not it had been voluntarily obtained. Ultimately, Retherford was convicted of attempted rape.
On appeal, it was contended that the trial court had committed reversible error by allowing use of the impeachment statement without first determining the issue of its voluntariness. This argument, based on Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), was supported by this Court's opinions in State v. Galasso, 217 So.2d 326 (Fla.1968) and Young v. State, 234 So.2d 341 (Fla.1970).
The State argued that no reversible error had been committed because, notwithstanding the above cases, the United States Supreme Court had subsequently decided, in Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 91 S.Ct. 643, 28 L.Ed.2d 1 (1971), that once a defendant had voluntarily taken the stand, his credibility could be impeached by use of prior conflicting statements made before Miranda warnings were given.
The District Court of Appeal,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Disbrow
...the principal thesis of the present majority that State constitutional provisions may be used to avoid Harris. (See State v. Retherford (Fla.1972) 270 So.2d 363; People v. Sturgis (1974) 58 Ill.2d 211, 317 N.E.2d 545, 547; Johnson v. State (1972), 258 Ind. 683, 284 N.E.2d 517, 520; Commonwe......
-
Oregon v. Hass 8212 1452
...No. 74—5472; Jorgenson v. People, 174 Colo. 144, 482 P.2d 962 (1971); Williams v. State, 301 A.2d 88 (Del.Sup.1973); State v. Retherford, 270 So.2d 363 (Fla.Sup.1972), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 953, 93 S.Ct. 3020, 37 L.Ed.2d 1007 (1973); Campbell v. State, 231 Ga. 69, 200 S.E.2d 690 (1973); Pe......
-
Nowlin v. State
...DCA 1975).2 Cone v. State, 285 So.2d 12 (Fla.1973).3 The conflict gives us jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla.Const.1 State v. Retherford, 270 So.2d 363 (Fla.1972).2 16 Cal.3d 124-26, 127 Cal.Rptr. 375-76, 545 P.2d 287-88 (dissent).3 Were it feasible I would change the process by which vo......
-
Com. v. Triplett
...State v. Darwin, 29 Conn.Sup. 423, 290 A.2d 593 (Conn.Super.1972); Williams v. State, Del.Supr., 301 A.2d 88 (1973); State v. Retherford, 270 So.2d 363 (Fla.1972); Campbell v. State, 231 Ga. 69, 200 S.E.2d 690 (1973); People v. Moore, 54 Ill.2d 33, 294 N.E.2d 297 (1973); Johnson v. State, I......