Smith v. State, 394 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 1981). · Go Syfert
Search
Smith v. State, 394 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 1981). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
22 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Riggins v. State (fladistctapp, 2005-03-09)
Treatment trajectory · 1981 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1981 2003 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Riggins v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Smith v. State, 394 So.2d 407 (Fla.1981); see also State v. Young, 217 So.2d 567, 571 (Fla.1968), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 853 , 90 S.Ct. 112 , 24 L.Ed.2d 101 (1969).
cited Cited "see" Harvey v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See Smith v. State, 378 So.2d 313 (Fla. 5th DCA), approved, 394 So.2d 407 (Fla.1980).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Johnny Lee SMITH, Petitioner,
v.
STATE of Florida, Respondent.
58607.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Mar 17, 1981.
394 So. 2d 407
Overton.
Cited by 19 opinions  |  Published

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Jon May, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for petitioner.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Phillip D. Havens, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for respondent.

OVERTON, Justice.

This is a petition for certiorari to review the Fifth District Court of Appeal's decision reported as Smith v. State, 378 So.2d 313 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), where the court approved Florida Standard Jury Instruction, Criminal Cases, 2.07, concerning petitioner's unexplained possession of recently stolen property. The District Court of Appeal determined that its holding was in accordance with this Court's decision in State v. Young, 217 So.2d 567 (Fla. 1968), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 853, 90 S.Ct. 112, 24 L.Ed.2d 101 (1969), but noted that its decision conflicted with the First District Court of Appeal's holding in Palmer v. State, 323 So.2d 612 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), cert. denied, 336 So.2d 108 (Fla. 1976). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. (prior to April 1, 1980).

The instant record reflects that petitioner made no attempt to explain his possession of the stolen property at the time of his arrest. Petitioner contends that instruction 2.07 violates his fifth amendment right to remain silent. We answered this exact question in State v. Young and held that the instruction was proper. We reaffirm our holding in State v. Young which is in accord with the United States Supreme Court decisions on the same issue. Barnes v. United States, 412 U.S. 837, 93 S.Ct. 2357, 37 L.Ed.2d 380 (1973); Turner v. United States, 396 U.S. 398, 90 S.Ct. 642, 24 L.Ed.2d 610 (1970).

We resolve the conflict by disapproving the First District's holding in Palmer v. State and approving the opinion of the Fifth District in the instant case.

It is so ordered.

SUNDBERG, C.J., and ADKINS, BOYD, ENGLAND, ALDERMAN and McDONALD, JJ., concur.