Clouser v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Clouser v. State

152 So. 2d 200, 1963 Fla. App. LEXIS 3613

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 24, 1963

DocketNo. 3235

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 152 So. 2d 200 (Clouser 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

Clouser v. State, 152 So. 2d 200, 1963 Fla. App. LEXIS 3613 (Fla. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Jack W. Clouser appeals his conviction and sentence on counts charging conspiracy, robbery, kidnapping and aggravated assault. Co-defendants Louis Harper and Edward Rogers were convicted on similar charges in the same trial.

In his closing argument the prosecutor commented on the failure of co-defendant Edward Rogers to testify. Defendant [201]*201Clouser now contends on his separate appeal thnt. the comment was prejudicial to him also since it was reasonably calculated to raise a question in the jurors’ minds as to his own failure to testify. This question was recently decided by this court in reversing the conviction of co-defendant Louis Harper. Accordingly the conviction and sentence in the instant case are reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial. See Harper v. State, Fla.App., 2nd District, 151 So.2d 881.

Reversed.

KANNER, Acting C. J., and ALLEN and WHITE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Jack W. Clouser appeals his conviction and sentence on counts charging conspiracy, robbery, kidnapping and aggravated assault. Co-defendants Louis Harper and Edward Rogers were convicted on similar charges in the same trial.

In his closing argument the prosecutor commented on the failure of co-defendant Edward Rogers to testify. Defendant [201]*201Clouser now contends on his separate appeal thnt. the comment was prejudicial to him also since it was reasonably calculated to raise a question in the jurors’ minds as to his own failure to testify. This question was recently decided by this court in reversing the conviction of co-defendant Louis Harper. Accordingly the conviction and sentence in the instant case are reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial. See Harper v. State, Fla.App., 2nd District, 151 So.2d 881.

Reversed.

KANNER, Acting C. J., and ALLEN and WHITE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 So. 2d 200, 1963 Fla. App. LEXIS 3613, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clouser-v-state-fladistctapp-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack