Dante v. State

Florida Circuit Courts

Dante v. State

35 Fla. Supp. 2d 52

CourtCircuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida

DecidedJune 5, 1989

DocketCase No. 87-248 AC

StatusPublished

This text of 35 Fla. Supp. 2d 52 (Dante v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dante v. State, 35 Fla. Supp. 2d 52 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

MICHAEL SALMON, Circuit Judge.

The Appellant was charged and convicted of fleeing a police officer. He seeks reversal upon the claim that an impermissible comment upon his right to remain silent was made to the jury. We agree, and reverse.

Two undercover officers, riding bicycles, observed the Appellant driving carelessly. They ordered him to stop. Apparently believing that [53]*53the officers had no radios, and that he car could outrun the bicycles, he took off. He was wrong about the radios.

Glenn Harris was in the car with Appellant. During his testimony - he was called as a witness by the state - he was asked whether he heard the Appellant offer any explanation to the police officers why he didn’t stop. We consider this question to be an impermissible comment upon the Appellant’s right to remain silent that has not been established to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, State v DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1989).

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

HENDERSON and KORNBLUM, JJ., concur.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

MICHAEL SALMON, Circuit Judge.

The Appellant was charged and convicted of fleeing a police officer. He seeks reversal upon the claim that an impermissible comment upon his right to remain silent was made to the jury. We agree, and reverse.

Two undercover officers, riding bicycles, observed the Appellant driving carelessly. They ordered him to stop. Apparently believing that [53]*53the officers had no radios, and that he car could outrun the bicycles, he took off. He was wrong about the radios.

Glenn Harris was in the car with Appellant. During his testimony - he was called as a witness by the state - he was asked whether he heard the Appellant offer any explanation to the police officers why he didn’t stop. We consider this question to be an impermissible comment upon the Appellant’s right to remain silent that has not been established to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, State v DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1989).

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

HENDERSON and KORNBLUM, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 Fla. Supp. 2d 52, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dante-v-state-flacirct-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack