Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

326 So. 2d 32

Docket No. 74-1617.

Farmer v. State

Darryl FARMER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided January 9, 1976.

Rehearing Denied February 9, 1976.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1976-01-09

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently June 1980

5 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“"... Defendant's counsel initially objected, but then withdrew the objection, apparently because he intended to show on redirect examination that appellant's silence at the preliminary hearing was the result of advice of counsel. There was no motion for a mistrial, no motion to strike this testimony, nor any motion for the court to instruct the jury to disregard such testimony. In short, there was no judicial error, and we are not inclined to hold it as fundamental error in view of defense counsel's tactical decision to withdraw his objection."”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including 336 So. 2d 468 - Clark v. State, 360 So. 2d 760 - Willinsky v. State

Relies on United States v. Hale · Bennett v. State · 200 So. 2d 574 - Jones v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1976-01-09

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*33 Richard S. Rhodes, Orlando, for appellant.

¶2Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and C. Marie Bernard, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4Appellant was convicted of first degree murder. The only issue he raises on appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to show premeditation. We conclude that this point is without merit.

¶5We comment briefly on what might appear, at first blush, to be fundamental error even though not argued. Appellant testified in his own behalf, relating a version of the incident which, if believed, would tend to partially (if not totally) exonerate him. Upon cross-examination the prosecutor elicited from appellant an admission that he had remained silent at the preliminary hearing. This was improper. United States v. Hale,422 U.S. 171, 95 S.Ct. 2133, 45 L.Ed.2d 99 (1975); Bennett v. State,316 So.2d 41 (Fla. 1975); Jones v. State,200 So.2d 574 (Fla.App.3rd, 1967). Defendant's counsel initially objected, but then withdrew the objection, apparently because he intended to show on redirect examination that appellant's silence at the preliminary hearing was the result of advice of counsel. There was no motion for a mistrial, no motion to strike this testimony, nor any motion for the court to instruct the jury to disregard such testimony. In short, there was no judicial error, and we are not inclined to hold it as fundamental error in view of defense counsel's tactical decision to withdraw his objection.

¶6Affirmed.

¶7WALDEN, C.J., and OWEN and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.

/326/so2d/32 · .json · Public domain