T.E. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

T.E. v. State

643 So. 2d 122, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 9806, 1994 WL 552553

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 12, 1994

DocketNo. 94-1078

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 643 So. 2d 122 (T.E. 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

T.E. v. State, 643 So. 2d 122, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 9806, 1994 WL 552553 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, T.E., a juvenile, appeals an adjudication of delinquency for trespass to a conveyance. We reverse.

The state correctly concedes that the trial court erred in permitting a police officer to comment on T.E.’s right to remain silent where the comment violated his privilege against self-incrimination. See Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965); State v. Boatman, 329 So.2d 309 (Fla.1976); J.D. v. State, 553 So.2d 1317 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). The trier-of-fact’s consideration of the improper comment on silence is reversible error unless the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that this constitutional error did not contribute to the finding of guilt. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986). Because the evidence presented by the state was far less than conclusive, the comment on T.E.’s silence was not harmless and therefore requires reversal. See DiGuilio, 491 So.2d at 1138.

Accordingly, we reverse T.E.’s adjudication for trespass to a conveyance. See J.E.P. v. State, 561 So.2d 10 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); C.B. v. State, 519 So.2d 686 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); S.P.L. v. State, 512 So.2d 1153 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).

Reversed.

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

CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, T.E., a juvenile, appeals an adjudication of delinquency for trespass to a conveyance. We reverse.

The state correctly concedes that the trial court erred in permitting a police officer to comment on T.E.’s right to remain silent where the comment violated his privilege against self-incrimination. See Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965); State v. Boatman, 329 So.2d 309 (Fla.1976); J.D. v. State, 553 So.2d 1317 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). The trier-of-fact’s consideration of the improper comment on silence is reversible error unless the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that this constitutional error did not contribute to the finding of guilt. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986). Because the evidence presented by the state was far less than conclusive, the comment on T.E.’s silence was not harmless and therefore requires reversal. See DiGuilio, 491 So.2d at 1138.

Accordingly, we reverse T.E.’s adjudication for trespass to a conveyance. See J.E.P. v. State, 561 So.2d 10 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); C.B. v. State, 519 So.2d 686 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); S.P.L. v. State, 512 So.2d 1153 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

643 So. 2d 122, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 9806, 1994 WL 552553, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/te-v-state-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack