Grieve v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Grieve v. State

731 So. 2d 84, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 4321, 1999 WL 187261

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 7, 1999

DocketNo. 98-1081

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 731 So. 2d 84 (Grieve 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

Grieve v. State, 731 So. 2d 84, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 4321, 1999 WL 187261 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s conviction for manslaughter. This case is distinguishable from Varona v. State, 674 So.2d 823 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). In this case, at the beginning of the voir dire, the trial judge correctly and extensively stated the law regarding a defendant’s right to remain silent at trial. Appellant did not object to any part of the court’s explanation. As the supreme court indicated in Andrews v. State, 443 So.2d 78, 84 (Fla. 1983), the trial judge’s recitation of correct instructions on a defendant’s right to remain silent at trial, such as those contained at Florida Standard Jury Instruction (Criminal) 1.01, is not error, even when given over the objection of a defendant. See Rosa v. State, 696 So.2d 1299, 1301 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). The prosecutor’s reference to the right to remain silent during voir dire was in response to a potential juror’s statement that he would “probably have to hear from the defense and see if it was an accident case or how the shooting occurred.” In response to this assertion, the prosecutor referred to the trial judge’s earlier remarks without misstating the law. Unlike Varona, this is not a case where the prosecutor first broached the issue of the defendant’s right to remain silent during voir dire, in a way that tended to devalue the right by “innuendo or faint praise.” 674 So.2d at 825.

AFFIRMED.

DELL, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s conviction for manslaughter. This case is distinguishable from Varona v. State, 674 So.2d 823 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). In this case, at the beginning of the voir dire, the trial judge correctly and extensively stated the law regarding a defendant’s right to remain silent at trial. Appellant did not object to any part of the court’s explanation. As the supreme court indicated in Andrews v. State, 443 So.2d 78, 84 (Fla. 1983), the trial judge’s recitation of correct instructions on a defendant’s right to remain silent at trial, such as those contained at Florida Standard Jury Instruction (Criminal) 1.01, is not error, even when given over the objection of a defendant. See Rosa v. State, 696 So.2d 1299, 1301 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). The prosecutor’s reference to the right to remain silent during voir dire was in response to a potential juror’s statement that he would “probably have to hear from the defense and see if it was an accident case or how the shooting occurred.” In response to this assertion, the prosecutor referred to the trial judge’s earlier remarks without misstating the law. Unlike Varona, this is not a case where the prosecutor first broached the issue of the defendant’s right to remain silent during voir dire, in a way that tended to devalue the right by “innuendo or faint praise.” 674 So.2d at 825.

AFFIRMED.

DELL, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

731 So. 2d 84, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 4321, 1999 WL 187261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grieve-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack