S.N. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

S.N. v. State

563 So. 2d 202, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 4614, 1990 WL 88087

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 26, 1990

DocketNo. 89-1958

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 563 So. 2d 202 (S.N. 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

S.N. v. State, 563 So. 2d 202, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 4614, 1990 WL 88087 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinions

CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

The State properly concedes that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence testimony by the arresting officers regarding the respondent’s post-arrest silence. This testimony was irrelevant and highly prejudicial. See United States v. Hale, 422 U.S. 171, 95 S.Ct. 2133, 45 L.Ed.2d 99 (1975) (post-arrest silence is too ambiguous to be probative of anything because it is susceptible of several explanations other than the arrestee’s consciousness of guilt). In addition, this testimony constituted an impermissible comment on the respondent’s right to remain silent, in violation of her privilege against self-incrimination. See Hosper v. State, 513 So.2d 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Simpson v. State, 418 So.2d 984 (Fla.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1156, 103 S.Ct. 801, 74 L.Ed.2d 1004 (1983).

Since the State acknowledges that it is unable to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not influence the adjudication and the record reveals that the trial court expressly relied upon the respondent’s post-arrest silence in disregarding the respondent’s evidence that she acted in self-defense and in determining that the respondent was a delinquent, the respondent is entitled to a new trial. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986).

Reversed and remanded.

GERSTEN and GODERICH, JJ., concur.

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

CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

The State properly concedes that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence testimony by the arresting officers regarding the respondent’s post-arrest silence. This testimony was irrelevant and highly prejudicial. See United States v. Hale, 422 U.S. 171, 95 S.Ct. 2133, 45 L.Ed.2d 99 (1975) (post-arrest silence is too ambiguous to be probative of anything because it is susceptible of several explanations other than the arrestee’s consciousness of guilt). In addition, this testimony constituted an impermissible comment on the respondent’s right to remain silent, in violation of her privilege against self-incrimination. See Hosper v. State, 513 So.2d 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Simpson v. State, 418 So.2d 984 (Fla.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1156, 103 S.Ct. 801, 74 L.Ed.2d 1004 (1983).

Since the State acknowledges that it is unable to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not influence the adjudication and the record reveals that the trial court expressly relied upon the respondent’s post-arrest silence in disregarding the respondent’s evidence that she acted in self-defense and in determining that the respondent was a delinquent, the respondent is entitled to a new trial. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986).

Reversed and remanded.

GERSTEN and GODERICH, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

563 So. 2d 202, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 4614, 1990 WL 88087, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sn-v-state-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack