Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

301 So. 2d 151

Britt v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided October 11, 1974

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1974-10-11

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently April 1975

1 state decisions

Relies on 204 So. 2d 515 - State v. Jones · Russ v. State · Carter v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1974-10-11

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

WALDEN, Judge.

¶1Appellant was convicted by a jury of entering without breaking to commit a misdemeanor. The appellant was sentenced to five years imprisonment. He bases this appeal on the theory that certain comments-questions made by the prosecutor on voir dire were prejudicial.

¶2There are ample cases to support the proposition that a prosecutor may not directly or indirectly comment on a defendant’s failure to take the stand. See Trafficante v. State, 92 So.2d 811 (Fla.1957) ; Childers v. State, 277 So.2d 594 (4th D.C. A.Fla.1973); Young v. State, 280 So.2d 13 (2d D.C.A.Fla.1973) ; Carter v. State, 199 So.2d 324 (2d D.C.A.Fla.1967); Flaherty v. State, 183 So.2d 607 (4th D.C.A. Fla. 1966), however there was no timely objection to the comments in question. In State v. Jones, 204 So.2d 515 (Fla.1967) the Supreme Court held that, unless an objection was made to an alleged improper prosecutorial comment at final argument, defendant could not appeal the comment. The comment herein was not made at final argument but the reason for requiring an objection has not been dissipated. See State v. Jones, supra.

¶3There being no error demonstrated, the judgment is

¶4Affirmed.

OWEN, C. J., concurs.CROSS, J., concurs only in conclusion.
/301/so2d/151 · .json · Public domain