State v. DiGuilio
491 So. 2d 1129 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A prosecutor's comment on a defendant's constitutional right to remain silent is a constitutional error, but it is subject to a harmless error analysis rather than a rule of per se (automatic) reversal.
Facts:
- An undercover police officer and an informant arranged a controlled purchase of cocaine from a suspected drug dealer, Rosa.
- Rosa met the officer in a motel room and stated that the cocaine was with another man in a motel room across the street.
- Rosa drove the officer's rental car across the street and returned five minutes later with Angelo John DiGuilio as a passenger.
- DiGuilio remained in the car while Rosa went to the officer's motel room and produced the cocaine.
- Police then moved in and arrested both Rosa and DiGuilio.
- After his arrest and receiving Miranda warnings, DiGuilio answered a few questions from a police officer but then stated that he felt he should speak to his attorney.
- DiGuilio and Rosa were later left alone in a police car with a hidden recording device, where they engaged in a short, ambiguous conversation.
Procedural Posture:
- Angelo John DiGuilio was charged with conspiracy to traffic in cocaine and trafficking in cocaine.
- At trial in the circuit court, a police officer testified that DiGuilio, after answering some questions, invoked his right to speak with an attorney.
- The jury found DiGuilio guilty of conspiracy to traffic in cocaine but not guilty of trafficking.
- DiGuilio, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal.
- The district court, as the intermediate appellate court, reversed the conviction, finding that under existing precedent the prosecutor's comment was per se reversible error.
- The district court then certified a question of great public importance to the Supreme Court of Florida, asking whether the per se reversal rule was still valid in light of more recent case law.
- The Supreme Court of Florida, the state's highest court, accepted jurisdiction to answer the certified question.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a prosecutor's comment on a defendant's constitutional right to remain silent subject to a harmless error analysis, rather than a rule of per se reversal?
Opinions:
Majority - Shaw, J.
Yes. A comment on a defendant's silence is constitutional error, but it is subject to a harmless error analysis. The prior rule of per se reversal for any such comment is receded from. The court reasoned that the per se rule was based on a statutory interpretation that had overlooked a broader, subsequently enacted harmless error statute. Adopting the federal standard from Chapman v. California, the court held that most constitutional errors do not automatically vitiate the right to a fair trial and should be analyzed for their actual effect on the verdict. The harmless error test places the burden on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the conviction. Applying this test to the instant case, the court found the error was harmful because the evidence of DiGuilio's guilt was not conclusive and the officer's testimony about DiGuilio's silence could have plausibly influenced the jury's verdict.
Dissenting - Adkins, J.
No. The dissent concurs with the result to reverse the conviction but disagrees with the majority's adoption of the harmless error rule for this type of error. The dissent argues that the new rule is 'ill-conceived' because it places an 'inordinate burden on the appellate court' and ultimately 'deprives defendants of a constitutional right.' The per se reversal rule should have been maintained to protect the fundamental right to remain silent.
Analysis:
This landmark decision fundamentally altered Florida criminal procedure by abandoning the long-standing per se reversal rule for prosecutorial comments on a defendant's silence. By aligning Florida's standard with the federal harmless error analysis from Chapman v. California, the court shifted the focus from the mere occurrence of an error to its actual impact on the trial's fairness. This change prevents automatic reversals for technical or insignificant errors but imposes a very high burden on the state to prove that a comment on silence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The case establishes a rigorous analytical framework for appellate courts, requiring a deep analysis of the error's effect on the jury rather than a simple review of the sufficiency of the remaining evidence.
Unlock the full brief for State v. DiGuilio