Legal Opinion

Crittendon v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided October 30, 1996No. 95-2888Published

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

  1. State v. DiGuilioSupreme Court of Florida · 1986
  2. J.D. v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1989
  3. Sharp v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1992
  4. Fundora v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1994
  5. Wood v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1989

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

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

Powered by the Exa API