Mitchell v. State
433 So. 2d 68
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Mitchell v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 458 So. 2d 10 →
Opinion
During closing argument, the prosecutor impermissibly commented on the defendant’s exercise of his Fifth Amendment right [69]*69to remain silent. The error was preserved for appellate review and, thus, we reverse. See Donovan v. State, 417 So.2d 674 (Fla. 1982); Clark v. State, 363 So.2d 331 (Fla. 1978); Shannon v. State, 335 So.2d 5 (Fla. 1976); Bennett v. State, 316 So.2d 41 (Fla. 1975).
REVERSED & REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Mitchell v. State, 433 So. 2d 68 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).
433 So. 2d 68 (Mitchell v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Clark v. State
363 So. 2d 331 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1978)
Shannon v. State
335 So. 2d 5 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1976)
Donovan v. State
417 So. 2d 674 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1982)
Bennett v. State
316 So. 2d 41 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1975)