Ulvano v. State

492 So. 2d 470, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1758, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 9385

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The conviction and sentence from which the defendant appeals is reversed upon a holding that the trial court committed reversible error in denying the defendant’s motion for mistrial when the prosecution in cross-examination of the defendant commented upon his post-arrest silence. A prosecutor’s comment on a defendant’s post-arrest silence is a serious constitutional violation. E.g., David v. State, 369 So.2d 943 (Fla.1979); Clark v. State, 363 So.2d 331 (Fla.1978); Ruiz v. State, 378 So.2d 101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Further, the state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict. See, e.g., State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986); State v. Marshall, 476 So.2d 150 (Fla.1985).

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.