Florida District Courts of Appeal, 1996

Crittendon v. State

Crittendon v. State
Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided October 30, 1996 · Allen, Mickle, Webster
681 So. 2d 920; 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 11389; 1996 WL 625522 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Crittendon v. State

Opinion of the Court

PER 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 without merit or are rendered moot by the disposition.

The conviction is reversed and the case is remanded.

ALLEN, WEBSTER and MICKLE, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.