At trial, a detective commented twice on Javier Dejeses Ventura’s invocation of his right to remain silent. The Fourth District Court of Appeal found the comments were improper, stating, “we fail to see how the detective’s comment, twice repeated, could have been anything other than an intentional cheap shot at Ventura’s constitutional rights.”
That court, however, held the error was harmless “given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.” The Supreme Court remanded for consideration of the proper test.
See: Ventura v. State, 29 So.3d 1086 (Fla. 2010).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Ventura v. State
|Cite||29 So.3d 1086 (Fla. 2010)|
|Level||State Supreme Court|