From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ragland v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
May 2, 1978
358 So. 2d 100 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

Summary

holding that where defendant waived his Fifth Amendment rights and freely and voluntarily conversed with police, comment on the failure to answer one question of many is not a violation of defendant's right to remain silent

Summary of this case from Guzman v. State

Opinion

No. 77-397.

May 2, 1978.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, Richard S. Fuller, J.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Kurt Marmar, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Anthony C. Musto, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ., and CRAWFORD, GRADY L. (Ret.), Associate Judge.


Appellant, defendant below, was charged by information with conspiracy to commit murder and attempted murder. A jury returned verdicts finding appellant guilty of conspiracy, but not guilty of attempted murder. The court adjudged appellant guilty and sentenced him to ten (10) years probation with a special condition that he serve five (5) years in the State Penitentiary.

Appellant's sole point on appeal is directed to the trial court's denial of various motions for mistrial. Appellant argues that motions for mistrial should have been granted upon repeated prosecutorial comments on appellant's post-arrest silence. We disagree.

While we are fully aware of the restrictions placed upon prosecutors on commenting upon a defendant's exercise of his or her constitutional right to remain silent, Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976); Bennett v. State, 316 So.2d 41 (Fla. 1975), the record before us conclusively demonstrates that appellant never invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Rather, the record reveals that after being given his Miranda warnings, appellant freely and voluntarily conversed with the police. During this post- Miranda lengthy conversation, appellant refused to answer one question of many. We do not believe that comment upon the failure to answer a single question was violative of appellant's constitutional right, when said constitutional right was not invoked. See Williams v. State, 353 So.2d 588 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Kellerman v. State, 353 So.2d 901 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Miller v. State, 343 So.2d 1292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); see also United States v. Fairchild, 505 F.2d 1378 (5th Cir. 1975).

Accordingly, appellant's conviction and sentence are affirmed.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Ragland v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
May 2, 1978
358 So. 2d 100 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

holding that where defendant waived his Fifth Amendment rights and freely and voluntarily conversed with police, comment on the failure to answer one question of many is not a violation of defendant's right to remain silent

Summary of this case from Guzman v. State

holding that where defendant waived his Fifth Amendment rights and freely and voluntarily conversed with police, comment on the failure to answer one question of many is not a violation of the defendant's right to remain silent

Summary of this case from Hudson v. State

In Ragland, supra, we held that a comment upon the failure to answer a single question was not violative of appellant's constitutional right when said right was not invoked. The same rationale is applicable here, and accordingly, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion in utilizing this as a basis for granting a new trial.

Summary of this case from State v. Prieto

In Ragland, defendant, after having been given his Miranda warnings, voluntarily answered a series of questions, only one of which he did not answer. This fact was brought out at trial.

Summary of this case from Thompson v. State
Case details for

Ragland v. State

Case Details

Full title:WALTER RAGLAND, APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: May 2, 1978

Citations

358 So. 2d 100 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

Citing Cases

Valle v. State

Appellant refused to answer one question of the many that were asked of him after he had been given his…

Valle v. Crosby

[Petitioner] refused to answer one question of the many that were asked of him after he had been given his…