Whitfield v. State, 452 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 1984). · Go Syfert
Search
Whitfield v. State, 452 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 1984). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
56 citation events (23 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Rafael Alexander Gutierrez v. State of Florida (fla, 2015-06-25) · Strongest negative: Escobedo v. State (fladistctapp, 1990-05-15)
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984 2005 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 22 distinct citers.
cited Cited "but see" Escobedo v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1990 · signal: but see · confidence high
See Brownlee v. State, 95 Fla. 775 , 116 So. 618 (1928); 15 Fla.Jur.2d Criminal Law § 775 (1979); but see Whitfield v. State, 452 So.2d 548 (Fla. 1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rafael Alexander Gutierrez v. State of Florida (2×)
Fla. · 2015 · confidence medium
Again, in Whitfield v. State, 452 So.2d 548 (Fla.1984), we explained that “a trial court should scrupulously avoid commenting on the evidence in a case.... [and] should take great care not to intimate to the' jury the court’s opinion as to the weight, character, or credibility of any evidence adduced.” Id. at 549 (citations omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fahie v. People
virginislands · 2015 · confidence medium
“Especially in a criminal prosecution, the trial court should take great care not to intimate to the jury the court’s opinion as to the weight, character, or credibility of any evidence adduced,” Whitfield v. State, 452 So. 2d 548, 549 (Fla. 1984) (a trial court “should scrupulously avoid commenting on the evidence in a case”); Krimer v. State, 699 N.E.2d 659, 664 (Ind. 1998) (noting the “well established principle that jury instructions should not single out” specific evidence or comment upon the weight or consideration to be given to specific evidence).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Johnson v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
Whitfield v. State, 452 So.2d 548, 549 (Fla.1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jackson v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Jones v. State, 612 So.2d 1370, 1373 (Fla.1992) (“It is error for a judge to comment on the evidence in the jury’s presence.”) (citing Raulerson v. State, 102 So.2d 281 (Fla.1958)); Simmons v. State, 803 So.2d 787, 788 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (“Florida law is clear that it is error for the judge to make a remark within the hearing of the jury that might convey his view of the case or his opinion of the weight, character, or credibility of the evidence.”) (citing Fenelon v. State, 594 So.2d 292, 294 (Fla.1992); Whitfield v. State, 452 So.2d 548, 549 (Fla.1984); Seward v. State,…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Kincaid v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
See Hutchinson v. State, 882 So.2d 943 (Fla.2004); Whitfield v. State, 452 So.2d 548, 549 (Fla.1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Vaughn v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
In order to ensure that all litigants receive a fair trial, the courts adhere to the general principle that "[a] trial court should scrupulously avoid commenting on the evidence in a case." Whitfield v. State, 452 So.2d 548, 549 (Fla.1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Walker v. State (2×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. · 2005 · confidence medium
In addition, Walker notes that this Court in Whitfield v. State, 452 So.2d 548, 549 (Fla.1984), held that a trial court could no longer instruct the jury that it could consider a defendant's refusal to submit to fingerprinting as a circumstance from which guilt could be inferred, for such instruction was an impermissible comment on the evidence.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Walker v. State (3×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
For example, in Whitfield v. State, 452 So.2d 548, 549 (Fla.1984), the Supreme Court held that a trial court could not inform a jury that it could infer guilty conscience from the fact that a defendant refused to submit to fingerprinting without impermissibly commenting on the evidence. 452 So.2d at 549 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Simmons v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
See e.g., Fenelon v. State, 594 So.2d 292, 294 (Fla.1992); Whitfield v. State, 452 So.2d 548, 549 (Fla.1984); Seward v. State, 59 So.2d 529, 531 (Fla.1952); Leavine v. State, 109 Fla. 447 , 147 So. 897, 902 (1933).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Randall v. State
Fla. · 2000 · confidence medium
Whitfield v. State, 452 So.2d 548, 549 (Fla.1984) (trial judge impermissibly evaluated evidence by instructing jury that defendant's refusal to submit to fingerprinting was circumstance from which consciousness of guilt could be inferred); Hamilton v. State, 109 So.2d 422, 424-25 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959) (trial judge's unintentional remarks before jury were of such character as to indicate court's opinion that defendant was guilty of murder).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pietri v. State
Fla. · 1994 · confidence medium
Before Fenelon a trial court could give the flight instruction "in the limited circumstance where there is significantly more evidence against the defendant than flight standing alone." Whitfield v. State, 452 So.2d 548, 549 (Fla. 1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Green v. State
Fla. · 1994 · confidence medium
Before Fenelon a trial court could give the flight instruction "in the limited circumstance where there is significantly more evidence against the defendant than flight standing alone." Whitfield v. State, 452 So.2d 548, 549 (Fla. 1984).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Crocker v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1993 · confidence medium
Whitfield v. State, 452 So.2d 548, 550 (Fla.1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Edwards v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1992 · confidence medium
We find that the issue has been resolved by Whitfield v. State, 452 So.2d 548, 549 (Fla. 1984): The trial court instructed the jury, over objection, that petitioner's refusal to submit to fingerprinting was a circumstance from which consciousness of guilt could be inferred... .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fenelon v. State (2×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. · 1992 · confidence medium
Whitfield v. State, 452 So.2d 548, 549 (Fla. 1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jackson v. State
Fla. · 1991 · confidence medium
As we said in Whitfield v. State, 452 So.2d 548, 549 (Fla. 1984), an instruction of flight is permissible only "where there is significantly more evidence against the defendant than flight standing alone." Where the only other evidence to tie the defendant to the crime is circumstantial, and the evidence of flight would be no more consistent with guilt than with innocence, the instruction is barred.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rhodes v. State
Fla. · 1989 · confidence medium
"Flight alone [will] not support an instruction that such flight is evidence of consciousness of guilt, as it would be no more consistent with guilt than with innocence." Whitfield v. State, 452 So.2d 548, 550 (Fla. 1984) (citing Proffitt v. State, 315 So.2d 461 (Fla. 1975), aff'd, 428 U.S. 242 , 96 S.Ct. 2960 , 49 L.Ed.2d 913 (1976)).
cited Cited "see" Lopez v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See Whitfield v. State, 452 So.2d 548, 550 (Fla.1984).
cited Cited "see" Merritt v. State
Fla. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See Whitfield v. State, 452 So.2d 548 (Fla. 1984).
cited Cited "see" Holley v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See Whitfield v. State, 452 So.2d 548 (Fla. 1984).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Dunn v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1984 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Whitfield v. State, 452 So.2d 548 (Fla. 1984), holding it reversible error for the trial court to instruct the jury that an inference of consciousness of guilt could be inferred from the defendant's refusal to submit to fingerprinting.
Clifton Lee WHITFIELD, Petitioner,
v.
STATE of Florida, Respondent.
64051.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Jun 14, 1984.
452 So. 2d 548
Shaw.
Cited by 35 opinions  |  Published

[*549] Randolph P. Murrell, Asst. Public Defender, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, for petitioner.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and David P. Gauldin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.

SHAW, Justice.

This cause is before us on petition for review of Whitfield v. State, 433 So.2d 1285 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), which is in express and direct conflict with Jackson v. State, 435 So.2d 984 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

Jerry Gosby testified for the state that he had originally participated in a conspiracy involving Paris Nelson and petitioner, the object of which was to kill Bobby Rivers. The original plan was to kill Rivers in his apartment using .38 and.32 caliber pistols. Rivers' body was discovered on a dirt road, and from it were removed one .38 caliber and two .32 caliber bullets. A fingerprint of Nelson, who was seen with Rivers the previous evening, was discovered inside Rivers' car.

Gosby, arrested on another charge, informed the police of the Rivers conspiracy, resulting in the arrest of Nelson and petitioner. Two pistols, .32 and .38 caliber, were found in a bag at a service station where petitioner worked. Petitioner's fingerprint was lifted from the bag.

Petitioner and Nelson were charged with conspiracy to commit first-degree murder. Before trial, Nelson told a cellmate, Dorio Daniels, that petitioner shot Rivers. Later Nelson told another cellmate, Gregory Williamson, that he had shot Rivers with petitioner's guns and then returned the guns to petitioner. While petitioner awaited trial, some eight months after his incarceration and initial fingerprinting, he refused to be fingerprinted a second time. The jury found petitioner guilty of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder and manslaughter.

The trial court instructed the jury, over objection, that petitioner's refusal to submit to fingerprinting was a circumstance from which consciousness of guilt could be inferred. The First District Court of Appeal noted that the "instruction appears to be an unnecessary comment on the evidence, and a matter more appropriately argued by counsel," Whitfield, 433 So.2d at 1287, but affirmed nonetheless, citing cases wherein instructions on flight have been affirmed. We find that the instruction was an impermissible comment evaluating the evidence. See Tanner v. State, 197 So.2d 842 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 201 So.2d 898 (Fla. 1967). A trial court should scrupulously avoid commenting on the evidence in a case. Lee v. State, 324 So.2d 694 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Especially in a criminal prosecution, the trial court should take great care not to intimate to the jury the court's opinion as to the weight, character, or credibility of any evidence adduced. Seward v. State, 59 So.2d 529 (Fla. 1952).

An instruction on flight, permitted in the limited circumstance where there is significantly more evidence against the defendant than flight standing alone, is an exception to the general rule prohibiting the trial court from commenting on the[*550] evidence. Flight alone would not support an instruction that such flight is evidence of consciousness of guilt, as it would be no more consistent with guilt than with innocence. Proffitt v. State, 315 So.2d 461 (Fla. 1975), affd., 428 U.S. 242, 96 S.Ct. 2960, 49 L.Ed.2d 913 (1976).

The Fourth District Court of Appeal in Jackson held that the flight rationale should not be extended. We agree and approve the decision in Jackson. We agree with Judge Ervin's comment in his dissent in Whitfield that upholding the instruction would allow the exception to swallow the rule.

Given the relatively scanty evidence linking Whitfield to Rivers' homicide and the proper preservation of the point, we find that the instruction constituted harmful error. Petitioner raises several other points that we need not discuss. The issue forming the basis for our jurisdiction is dispositive. We therefore quash the decision and remand to the district court with directions to remand to the trial court for a new trial.

It is so ordered.

ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON, McDONALD and EHRLICH, JJ., concur.

ALDERMAN, C.J., dissents.