Case Name: Randy Eugene KINCHEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1983-05-11
Citations: 432 So. 2d 586
Docket Number: No. 81-2133
Parties: Randy Eugene KINCHEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: ANSTEAD, HERSEY and HURLEY, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 432
Pages: 586–586

Head Matter:
Randy Eugene KINCHEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 81-2133.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
May 11, 1983.
On Rehearing June 29, 1983.
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Richard Greene, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Joy B. Shearer, Asst. Atty. Gen., and James P. McLane, Certified Legal Intern, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Upon review of the record we conclude that the appellant is entitled to a new trial because a comment was made during closing arguments which was fairly susceptible of being interpreted by the jury as referring to the appellant's failure to testify. The Florida Supreme Court has held that such comments require the granting of a motion for mistrial or, if such motion is denied, a reversal for new trial. David v. State, 369 So.2d 943 (Fla.1979); Trafficante v. State, 92 So.2d 811 (Fla.1957); Sublette v. State, 365 So.2d 775 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); DeLuna v. State, 308 F.2d 140 (5th Cir. 1962).
Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and this cause is remanded for further proceedings in accord herewith.
ANSTEAD, HERSEY and HURLEY, JJ., concur.