Bravo v. State
65 So. 3d 621
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Bravo was convicted of aggravated assault with possession of a firearm following a trial.
- Police questioned Bravo about gun ownership; Bravo stated the gun was at his mother's house and that a warrant was required to search his residence.
- Defense moved in limine to exclude any reference to Bravo's refusal to consent to a warrantless search of his home.
- State sought to introduce the refusal as evidence of consciousness of guilt and to attack Bravo’s theory of self-defense.
- Trial court denied the motion in limine; Officer Hurst testified that Bravo would not consent to a search without a warrant; no firearm was admitted at trial.
- On appeal, Bravo challenged the trial court ruling; the court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding the error not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admitting refused search consent and related closing argument violated the Fourth Amendment and was reversible. | Bravo should prevail; such testimony infringes Fourth Amendment rights and comments are improper. | State contends the error is harmless under DiGuilio analysis. | Error not harmless; reversed and remanded for a new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gomez v. State, 572 So.2d 952 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (comment on right to refuse search violates Fourth Amendment rights)
- Kearney v. State, 846 So.2d 618 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (closing remarks on Fourth Amendment rights deemed constitutional error)
- State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986) (harmless error standard for comments on silence)
- Goodwin v. State, 751 So.2d 537 (Fla. 1999) (harmless-error analysis requires assessment of impact on the jury)