Legal Opinion

Samosky v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided November 15, 1983No. 82-2614PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

The defendant William Samosky appeals his convictions for manslaughter, armed robbery and kidnapping and contends that the trial court committed reversible error in denying his timely motion for mistrial based on an impermissible comment by the prosecuting attorney during closing argument to the jury. It is urged that the prosecuting attorney indirectly commented on the defendant’s failure to testify in the ease as follows:

“So normally at this point, I’d say, ‘Well, what about the defense in this case?’ I don’t know what the defense is_” (R. 234-35)

We entirely agree that the above comment was…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Bennett v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1975
  2. Trafficante v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1957
  3. Harris v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1983
  4. David v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1979
  5. Donovan v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1982

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Marshall v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1984
  2. Grissom v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1985

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API