Williams v. State, 75--895
| Decision Date | 30 July 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 75--895,75--895 |
| Citation | 335 So.2d 854 |
| Parties | Early WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Downey, J., concurred specially and filed an opinion.
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Frank B. Kessler, Asst. Public Defender, and Paul M. Herman, Legal Intern, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William M. Grodnick, Asst. Atty. Gen., Miami, for appellee.
In light of the Supreme Court of Florida's recent decisions in Shannon v. State, 335 So.2d 5, opinion filed June 30, 1976 and Bennett v. State, 316 So.2d 41 (Fla.1975), and this court's decision in Bostic v. State, 332 So.2d 349 (Fla. 4 DCA 1976), the testimony elicited during direct examination by the State reflecting the defendant's silence after his arrest and Miranda warnings constituted fundamental reversible error. Accordingly, the judgment and sentence of conviction are reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
REVERSE AND REMAND.
DOWNEY, J., concurs specially, with opinion.
In this case a police officer called as a witness for the state, testified that he informed appellant of his constitutional rights at the time of appellant's arrest and that appellant did not want to talk at that time. After being taken to the police station, the appellant was again informed of his constitutional rights. At that time appellant voluntarily made an incriminating statement. The court received that statement into evidence.
The majority has decided to reverse on authority of cases holding that it is reversible error for the state to produce evidence that tells the jury a defendant remained silent after being advised of his constitutional rights. I have no quarrel with those cases. However, under the circumstances of the present case, I do not think they are applicable here because the appellant made a voluntary inculpatory statement at the police station after remaining silent at the time of his arrest. I think that the subsequent voluntary statement dissipated any harm which the testimony relative to the earlier silence might have inflicted on appellant because harm results from improper inferences a jury might make from testimony concerning a defendant's silence upon being given constitutional warnings. 1
Here any inferences the jury might make as to appellant's initial silence were insignificant in light of appellant's voluntary inculpating...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tsavaris v. Scruggs
...339 So.2d 1172 Martin v. State, 334 So.2d 841 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) Boyd v. State, 335 So.2d 834 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) Williams v. State, 335 So.2d 854 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) Carter v. State, 335 So.2d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) Collins v. State, 340 So.2d 516 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) Woulard v. State, 34......
-
Porter v. State
...DCA 1976); Collins v. State, 340 So.2d 516 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Carter v. State, 335 So.2d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Williams v. State, 335 So.2d 854 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Martin v. State, 334 So.2d 841 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Bostic v. State, 332 So.2d 349 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Jones v. State, 2......
-
M. E. G., In Interest of, 76-2399
...State, 316 So.2d 41 (Fla.1975); Paulen v. State, 352 So.2d 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), opinion issued November 22, 1977; Williams v. State, 335 So.2d 854 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Martin v. State, 334 So.2d 841 (Fla. 4th DCA It is reversible error incapable of being rendered harmless error by some......
-
Paulen v. State, 76-1938
...warnings. It is fundamental, constitutional error incapable of being rendered harmless by later events. See also Williams v. State, 335 So.2d 854 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); especially Judge Downey's special concurrence which indicates the facts there are quite on point. Appellant must be afforded......