Urbaniak v. State
Decision Date | 28 March 2018 |
Docket Number | Case No. 2D16–4612 |
Parties | John URBANIAK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Matthew J. Salvia, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Johnny T. Salgado, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
John Urbaniak appeals his convictions and sentences for one count of battery and one count of attempted battery following a jury trial. We affirm Urbaniak's judgment and sentences but write to address one of his arguments on appeal and the State's response to it.
Law enforcement and EMS were dispatched to Urbaniak's home after receiving a 911 call from Urbaniak's sister. After the responding police deputy interviewed the individuals at the scene, he took Urbaniak into custody. Urbaniak argues that the deputy improperly commented on his right to remain silent when he testified on direct during the State's case-in-chief that he The deputy also testified, "I gave the defendant an opportunity to speak with me but he refused, so he was placed under arrest."
Comment on a defendant's silence after arrest is prohibited by the due process clause of the Florida Constitution. Art I, § 9, Fla. Const. Green v. State, 27 So.3d 731, 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (quoting State v. Hoggins, 718 So.2d 761, 769 (Fla. 1998) ); see also State v. Smith, 573 So.2d 306, 317 (Fla. 1990) ().
The State contends that the deputy's comments were "a recounting of what happened between the deputy and Urbaniak during [the] investigation rather than a comment on appellant's right to remain silent." We are not persuaded; the deputy's testimony that Urbaniak was arrested after he failed to offer any explanation about what had happened was certainly an impermissible comment on Urbaniak's right to remain silent. See, e.g., State v. Horwitz, 191 So.3d 429, 445 (Fla. 2016) ( ); Parker v. State, 124 So.3d 1023, 1026 n.2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) ( ); Green, 27 So.3d at 736 ( ); Ash v. State, 995 So.2d 1158, 1158 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) ( ); Charton v. State, 716 So.2d 803, 806 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) ( ); Carr v. State, 561 So.2d 617, 618–19 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) ( ).
In this case, the deputy specifically referred to Urbaniak's prearrest silence, which invokes a slightly different constitutional standard for admission than comment on postarrest silence. Although the use of a defendant's prearrest silence is not precluded in federal court unless the defendant first invoked his right to remain silent, Salinas v. Texas, 570 U.S. 178, 191, 133 S.Ct. 2174, 186 L.Ed.2d 376 (2013) (plurality opinion) (), the issue is more nuanced under the Florida Constitution, Horwitz, 191 So.3d at 439 (). Under the Florida Constitution, the State may not admit a defendant's prearrest, pre- Miranda 1 silence as substantive evidence of guilt or when the defendant fails to testify. Horwitz, 191 So.3d at 442 . However, prearrest, pre- Miranda silence may be used to impeach a defendant when he testifies at trial, "only if the silence was inconsistent with the defendant's testimony at trial." Id. at 440 (emphasis omitted); see also Hoggins, 718 So.2d at...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rodriguez-Olivera v. State
...pre- Miranda2 silence is inadmissible "as substantive evidence of guilt or when the defendant fails to testify." Urbaniak v. State , 241 So. 3d 963, 966 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018). As the supreme court has explained, anything that is "fairly susceptible of being interpreted by the jury as a comment......
-
Howard v. State
...comment on the right to remain silent if it is "fairly susceptible" of being understood by the jury in that way. Urbaniak v. State, 241 So. 3d 963, 965 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (quoting Green v. State, 27 So. 3d 731, 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) ). When a defendant remains silent during an encounter wi......
-
Rodriguez-Olivera v. State
... ... v. Horwitz , 191 So.3d 429, 439 (Fla. 2016). Evidence of ... a defendant's prearrest, ... pre- Miranda [ 2 ] silence is inadmissible "as ... substantive evidence of guilt or when the defendant fails to ... testify." Urbaniak v. State , 241 So.3d 963, 966 ... (Fla. 2d DCA 2018). As the supreme court has explained, ... anything that is "fairly susceptible of being ... interpreted by the jury as a comment on [defendant's] ... failure to testify" constitutes a "serious ... error." Horwitz , ... ...
-
Cannon v. State
...was not preserved."). Because the defendant's objection was not preserved, "our review is for fundamental error." Urbaniak v. State , 241 So. 3d 963, 966 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018). "Fundamental error is error that reaches down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of g......