Gillian v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gillian v. State

364 So. 2d 729, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 17320

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 18, 1977

DocketNo. FF-59

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 364 So. 2d 729 (Gillian 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

Gillian v. State, 364 So. 2d 729, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 17320 (Fla. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

BOYER, Judge.

Appellant, charged with burglary of a dwelling and convicted and sentenced accordingly, now appeals urging that fundamental error occurred when the prosecutor questioned him in the presence of the jury, without objection, concerning defendant’s failure to give any explanatory statement to the officer at the time of his arrest, citing Bennett v. State, 316 So.2d 41 (Fla.1975) and Shannon v. State, 335 So.2d 5 (Fla.1976). We have carefully considered those cases as did our brethren of the Second District, in a factually similar case, Clark v. State, 336 So.2d 468 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1976). No useful purpose will be accomplished by lengthy quotations from the last mentioned opinion. Suffice to say that we too are of the same view that Bennett v. State and Shannon v. State are distinguishable and not here controlling and that Clark v. State correctly analyzes those and other decisions therein cited. Accordingly, adopting the reasoning of Clark v. State, supra, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

McCORD, C. J., and RAWLS, J., concur.

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

BOYER, Judge.

Appellant, charged with burglary of a dwelling and convicted and sentenced accordingly, now appeals urging that fundamental error occurred when the prosecutor questioned him in the presence of the jury, without objection, concerning defendant’s failure to give any explanatory statement to the officer at the time of his arrest, citing Bennett v. State, 316 So.2d 41 (Fla.1975) and Shannon v. State, 335 So.2d 5 (Fla.1976). We have carefully considered those cases as did our brethren of the Second District, in a factually similar case, Clark v. State, 336 So.2d 468 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1976). No useful purpose will be accomplished by lengthy quotations from the last mentioned opinion. Suffice to say that we too are of the same view that Bennett v. State and Shannon v. State are distinguishable and not here controlling and that Clark v. State correctly analyzes those and other decisions therein cited. Accordingly, adopting the reasoning of Clark v. State, supra, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

McCORD, C. J., and RAWLS, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

364 So. 2d 729, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 17320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gillian-v-state-fladistctapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack