Crittendon v. State
District Court of Appeal of Florida
1Per curiam
We reverse the appellant’s conviction because we are unable to say that the prosecutor’s improper comment upon the appellant’s post-arrest silence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986); Sharp v. State, 605 So.2d 146, (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Fundora v. State, 634 So.2d 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); J.D. v. State, 553 So.2d 1317 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Wood v. State, 552 So.2d 235 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Nixon v. State, 536 So.2d 391 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Hosper v. State, 513 So.2d 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). The other arguments presented by the appellant are…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- State v. DiGuilioSupreme Court of Florida · 1986
- J.D. v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1989
- Sharp v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1992
- Fundora v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1994
- Wood v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1989
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.