Chester v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Chester v. State

444 So. 2d 1051, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11376

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 20, 1984

DocketNo. AK-332

StatusPublished

This text of 444 So. 2d 1051 (Chester 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

Chester v. State, 444 So. 2d 1051, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11376 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

It is conceded that a comment upon the accused’s exercise of his right to remain silent was made during the course of the trial. The appellee contends, however, that the remark was harmless. It is settled doctrine in this State that the error of which appellant complains warrants reversal without consideration of the doctrine of harmless error. Bennett v. State, 316 So.2d 41 (Fla.1975); Shannon v. State, 335 So.2d 5 (Fla.1976). See also, Willinsky v. [1052]*1052State, 360 So.2d 760 (Fla.1978); Clark v. State, 363 So.2d 331 (Fla.1978). In light of the foregoing authorities, we decline to certify to the Florida Supreme Court for reconsideration, as requested by the State, the issue of the preclusion of the harmless error doctrine to comments upon the accused’s exercise of his right to remain silent.¹ Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence is reversed and the cause remanded for new trial.

BOOTH, WENTWORTH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

It is conceded that a comment upon the accused’s exercise of his right to remain silent was made during the course of the trial. The appellee contends, however, that the remark was harmless. It is settled doctrine in this State that the error of which appellant complains warrants reversal without consideration of the doctrine of harmless error. Bennett v. State, 316 So.2d 41 (Fla.1975); Shannon v. State, 335 So.2d 5 (Fla.1976). See also, Willinsky v. [1052]*1052State, 360 So.2d 760 (Fla.1978); Clark v. State, 363 So.2d 331 (Fla.1978). In light of the foregoing authorities, we decline to certify to the Florida Supreme Court for reconsideration, as requested by the State, the issue of the preclusion of the harmless error doctrine to comments upon the accused’s exercise of his right to remain silent.¹ Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence is reversed and the cause remanded for new trial.

BOOTH, WENTWORTH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

444 So. 2d 1051, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11376, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chester-v-state-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack