Andres v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Andres v. State

468 So. 2d 1084, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1201, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14182

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 14, 1985

DocketNo. 84-1343

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 468 So. 2d 1084 (Andres v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Andres v. State, 468 So. 2d 1084, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1201, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14182 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The prosecutor’s closing argument statement: “There is no testimony at this point in the evidence to indicate that he ever intended to withdraw [from the conspiracy],” was, beyond any dispute, susceptible of being interpreted by the jury as referring to the defendant’s failure to testify, and, the error having been preserved by timely objection and motion for mistrial, reversal of Andres’ conviction is required even if the statement could be deemed harmless. Harris v. State, 438 So.2d 787 (Fla.1983); Donovan v. State, 417 So.2d 674 (Fla.1982); David v. State, 369 So.2d 943 (Fla.1979); Trafficante v. State, 92 So.2d 811 (Fla.1957); Roberts v. State, 443 So.2d 192 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), rev. denied, 450 So.2d 489 (Fla.1984); Brown v. State, 427 So.2d 304 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 438 So.2d 834 (Fla.1983). Because we do not find the evidence of the defendant’s guilt so overwhelming as to render harmless the prosecutor’s argument, we need not question whether the Supreme Court of Florida in State v. Murray, 443 So.2d 955 (Fla.1984), has receded from the per se [1085]*1085reversal rule. Compare, e.g., Burns v. State, 466 So.2d 1207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Grissom v. State, 469 So.2d 151 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985. However, contrary to the defendant’s claim, the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction, and he is not entitled to discharge.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The prosecutor’s closing argument statement: “There is no testimony at this point in the evidence to indicate that he ever intended to withdraw [from the conspiracy],” was, beyond any dispute, susceptible of being interpreted by the jury as referring to the defendant’s failure to testify, and, the error having been preserved by timely objection and motion for mistrial, reversal of Andres’ conviction is required even if the statement could be deemed harmless. Harris v. State, 438 So.2d 787 (Fla.1983); Donovan v. State, 417 So.2d 674 (Fla.1982); David v. State, 369 So.2d 943 (Fla.1979); Trafficante v. State, 92 So.2d 811 (Fla.1957); Roberts v. State, 443 So.2d 192 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), rev. denied, 450 So.2d 489 (Fla.1984); Brown v. State, 427 So.2d 304 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 438 So.2d 834 (Fla.1983). Because we do not find the evidence of the defendant’s guilt so overwhelming as to render harmless the prosecutor’s argument, we need not question whether the Supreme Court of Florida in State v. Murray, 443 So.2d 955 (Fla.1984), has receded from the per se [1085]*1085reversal rule. Compare, e.g., Burns v. State, 466 So.2d 1207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Grissom v. State, 469 So.2d 151 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985. However, contrary to the defendant’s claim, the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction, and he is not entitled to discharge.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

468 So. 2d 1084, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1201, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andres-v-state-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack