Samosky v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Samosky v. State

448 So. 2d 509, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 24254

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 15, 1983

DocketNo. 82-2614

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 448 So. 2d 509 (Samosky 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

Samosky v. State, 448 So. 2d 509, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 24254 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant William Samosky appeals his convictions for manslaughter, armed robbery and kidnapping and contends that the trial court committed reversible error in denying his timely motion for mistrial based on an impermissible comment by the prosecuting attorney during closing argument to the jury. It is urged that the prosecuting attorney indirectly commented on the defendant’s failure to testify in the ease as follows:

“So normally at this point, I’d say, ‘Well, what about the defense in this case?’ I don’t know what the defense is_” (R. 234-35)

We entirely agree that the above comment was an indirect comment on the defendant’s failure to testify and present a defense, that the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s timely motion for mistrial based on this comment, and that a reversal of the convictions herein is required under the established law of this state. Shepherd v. State, 436 So.2d 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Fernandez v. State, 427 So.2d 265 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Young v. State, 280 So.2d 13 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973). We specifically reject the state's contention that we consider this comment a harmless error because the law of Florida is well-settled that “such a comment requires the reversal of a conviction and that the harmless error rule does not apply,” Harris v. State, 438 So.2d 787 (Fla.1983), that “[a]ny comment on an accused’s exercise of his right to remain silent is reversible error, without regard for the harmless error doctrine,” Donovan v. State, 417 So.2d 674, 675 (Fla.1982), and that “[a]ny comment which is ‘fairly susceptible’ of being interpreted by the jury as referring to a criminal defendant’s failure to testify constitutes reversible error, without resort to the harmless error doctrine.” David v. State, 369 So.2d 943, 944 (Fla.1979). See also Shannon v. State, 335 So.2d 5 (Fla.1976); Bennett v. State, 316 So.2d 41 (Fla.1975); Trafficante v. State, 92 So.2d 811 (Fla. 1957), for the same holding.

The judgments of conviction and sentences under review are reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for a new trial.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant William Samosky appeals his convictions for manslaughter, armed robbery and kidnapping and contends that the trial court committed reversible error in denying his timely motion for mistrial based on an impermissible comment by the prosecuting attorney during closing argument to the jury. It is urged that the prosecuting attorney indirectly commented on the defendant’s failure to testify in the ease as follows:

“So normally at this point, I’d say, ‘Well, what about the defense in this case?’ I don’t know what the defense is_” (R. 234-35)

We entirely agree that the above comment was an indirect comment on the defendant’s failure to testify and present a defense, that the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s timely motion for mistrial based on this comment, and that a reversal of the convictions herein is required under the established law of this state. Shepherd v. State, 436 So.2d 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Fernandez v. State, 427 So.2d 265 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Young v. State, 280 So.2d 13 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973). We specifically reject the state's contention that we consider this comment a harmless error because the law of Florida is well-settled that “such a comment requires the reversal of a conviction and that the harmless error rule does not apply,” Harris v. State, 438 So.2d 787 (Fla.1983), that “[a]ny comment on an accused’s exercise of his right to remain silent is reversible error, without regard for the harmless error doctrine,” Donovan v. State, 417 So.2d 674, 675 (Fla.1982), and that “[a]ny comment which is ‘fairly susceptible’ of being interpreted by the jury as referring to a criminal defendant’s failure to testify constitutes reversible error, without resort to the harmless error doctrine.” David v. State, 369 So.2d 943, 944 (Fla.1979). See also Shannon v. State, 335 So.2d 5 (Fla.1976); Bennett v. State, 316 So.2d 41 (Fla.1975); Trafficante v. State, 92 So.2d 811 (Fla. 1957), for the same holding.

The judgments of conviction and sentences under review are reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

448 So. 2d 509, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 24254, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/samosky-v-state-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack