From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Moore v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Apr 17, 1973
276 So. 2d 504 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1973)

Opinion

Nos. 72-323, 72-324.

April 17, 1973.

Appeal from the Court of Record for Broward County, James M. Reasbeck, J.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Charles W. Musgrove, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellants.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William W. Herring, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.


Based upon our review of the briefs, the record on appeal and having heard oral argument, we are of the opinion that no reversible error has been demonstrated. The judgment and conviction is therefore affirmed. We would, however, observe that although the defendant's testimony was of a sufficient nature as to fully present to the jury his version of the incident which formed the gravamen of the criminal charge, it was error for the trial court to refuse to permit the defendant to testify as to whether he committed the crime for which he was charged. While we deem this to have been harmless error in light of defendant's other testimony we would observe that it is basic to a defendant's "right to be heard" to be able to testify as to whether he did or did not commit the crime for which he was charged. (Art. I, Sec. 16, Declaration of Rights, Const. of Fla., F.S.A.). Cf. Rowe v. State, 1935, 120 Fla. 649, 163 So. 22. Compare with Deeb v. State, 1937, 131 Fla. 362, 179 So. 894.

Affirmed.

OWEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.

CROSS, J., dissents.


Summaries of

Moore v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Apr 17, 1973
276 So. 2d 504 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1973)
Case details for

Moore v. State

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES JAMES MOORE AND MORRIS MOORE, APPELLANTS, v. STATE OF FLORIDA…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Apr 17, 1973

Citations

276 So. 2d 504 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1973)

Citing Cases

Raydo v. State

Consequently, we can see no compelling reason to reconsider our holding in Hall, and we decline the State's…

Hall v. Oakley

"[I]t is basic to a defendant's `right to be heard' to be able to testify as to whether he did or did not…