Opinion

Brown v. State

  • 197 So. 3d 569
  • 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 4199
  • 2015 WL 1319511
Court
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Filed
Mar 25, 2015
Status
Published
Author
Shepherd
On the bench
Shepherd, Emas, Scales
Cited by
3 cases
Authority
More cited than 50.0%

The opinion

Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed March 25, 2015.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D13-2288

Lower Tribunal No. 09-28442

________________

Robert Brown,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Bronwyn C.

Miller, Judge.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Susan S. Lerner, Assistant Public

Defender, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Michael W. Mervine, Assistant

Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SHEPHERD, C.J., and EMAS and SCALES, JJ.

SHEPHERD, C.J.

Robert Brown appeals his conviction and sentence for trafficking in cocaine,

asserting as error the State’s cross-examination of Brown at trial and later closing

argument, questioning why he waited until trial – four years after the date of the

crime – to divulge the name of the alleged actual owner of the contraband.

Because Brown invoked his right to remain silent, pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona,1

when he was arrested at the scene of the crime and never waived that right during

the ensuing four years, we find, as the State has admirably conceded, that the

prosecution’s questioning and argument were in error and shifted the burden of

proof to Brown to prove his innocence. See State v. Smith, 573 So. 2d 306, 317

(Fla. 1990) (“Our cases have made clear that courts must prohibit all evidence or

argument that is fairly susceptible of being interpreted by the jury as a comment on

the right of silence.”); see also, U.S. Const. amend. V (“No Person … shall be

compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself); Art. I, § 9, Fla.

Const. (“No person shall … be compelled in any criminal matter to be a witness

against oneself.”). We note that in this regard, we have considered the State’s

harmless error argument and are unable to conclude the error was harmless beyond

a reasonable doubt. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129, 1135 (Fla. 1986).

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

1 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

2

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.