Cruz v. State

328 So. 2d 24
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Cruz v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 310 So. 2d 360
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 17, 1976·No. No. 75-871·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The single point presented on this appeal after defendant was found guilty by a jury of robbery, adjudicated guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment is that the trial court erred in denying defendant the right to comment on his codefendant’s failure to take the stand at the trial. Appellant at no time asked for a severance, and his claim of a right to comment upon his codefend-ant’s failure to testify came at the end of the trial.

Under these circumstances, no error is presented because to have allowed the comment would have required a mistrial for appellant’s codefendant. Cf. Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965).

Affirmed.

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

Cruz v. State, 328 So. 2d 24 (Fla. Ct. App. 1976).

328 So. 2d 24 (Cruz v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Griffin v. California
380 U.S. 609 (Supreme Court, 1965)
Griffin v. California
380 U.S. 609 (Supreme Court, 1965)