Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

358 So. 2d 100

Docket No. 77-397.

Ragland v. State

Walter RAGLAND, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided May 2, 1978.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1978-05-02

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“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.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including 474 So. 2d 796 - Valle v. State, 726 So. 2d 357 - Thomas v. State

Relies on Doyle v. Ohio · United States v. Fairchild · Bennett v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1978-05-02

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently April 2017

14 state decisions

8019781980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Kurt Marmar, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

¶2Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Anthony C. Musto, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

¶3Before PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ., and CRAWFORD, GRADY L. (Ret.), Associate Judge.

¶4HENDRY, Judge.

¶5Appellant, 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.

¶6Appellant'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.

¶7While 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.*101State,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).

¶8Accordingly, appellant's conviction and sentence are affirmed.

¶9Affirmed.

/358/so2d/100 · .json · Public domain