Summary
In Maness v. State, 341 So.2d 246 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), the court said that if the state is not seeking to introduce a statement of the defendant into evidence, it is unnecessary to show that the defendant was properly warned of his constitutional rights, "and the attempt to make such a showing courts reversible error."
Summary of this case from Carter v. StateOpinion
No. 75-2049.
December 24, 1976. Rehearing Denied February 2, 1977.
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Brevard County, Robert B. McGregor, J.
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and James R. Merola, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Marsha G. Madorsky, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Reversed upon authority of Bennett v. State, 316 So.2d 41 (Fla. 1976); Shannon v. State, 335 So.2d 5 (Fla. 1976); Martin v. State, 334 So.2d 841 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Bostic v. State, 332 So.2d 349 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).
It seems appropriate here to point out that we are currently reviewing numerous cases in which error results from a situation such as the one involved in the present case. The prosecutor (without the necessity of establishing a predicate for the introduction into evidence of any statement of the defendant) asks the arresting officer whether the defendant made any statement after being warned of his constitutional rights and obtains a negative answer from the officer. Of course, the officer's testimony as to the negative answer invades the Fifth Amendment rights of the defendant. If the state is not seeking to introduce a statement of the defendant into evidence, it is unnecessary to show the defendant was properly warned of his constitutional rights, and the attempt to make such a showing courts reversible error.
REVERSED.
MAGER, C.J., and CROSS and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.