State v. Katzman

Miami-Dade County Circuit Court

State v. Katzman

41 Fla. Supp. 129

CourtCircuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida, Miami-Dade County

DecidedNovember 1, 1974

DocketNo. 73-22374

StatusPublished

This text of 41 Fla. Supp. 129 (State v. Katzman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida, Miami-Dade County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Katzman, 41 Fla. Supp. 129 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

WILLIAM A. HERIN, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a county court conviction for violation of the traffic code. This court has examined the record and briefs and heard oral argument.

At the conclusion of the direct testimony by the police officer, the trial court asked appellant if he had anything to say. This was reversible error, since appellant was not then represented by counsel and the trial'court did not advise appellant of his right to remain silent. Cochran v. State, 117 So.2d 544 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960). The [130]*130trial court also erred in failing to inform appellant of his right to cross-examine the police officer. See Coco v. State, 62 So.2d 892, 894-5 (Fla. 1953); see also Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019 (1938).

Accordingly, it is hereby adjudged that the conviction and sentence is reversed with instructions to grant appellant a new trial.

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

WILLIAM A. HERIN, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a county court conviction for violation of the traffic code. This court has examined the record and briefs and heard oral argument.

At the conclusion of the direct testimony by the police officer, the trial court asked appellant if he had anything to say. This was reversible error, since appellant was not then represented by counsel and the trial'court did not advise appellant of his right to remain silent. Cochran v. State, 117 So.2d 544 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960). The [130]*130trial court also erred in failing to inform appellant of his right to cross-examine the police officer. See Coco v. State, 62 So.2d 892, 894-5 (Fla. 1953); see also Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019 (1938).

Accordingly, it is hereby adjudged that the conviction and sentence is reversed with instructions to grant appellant a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 Fla. Supp. 129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-katzman-flacirct11mia-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack