Case Name: Ronnie WOULARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1976-11-26
Citations: 340 So. 2d 945
Docket Number: No. 76-79
Parties: Ronnie WOULARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: CROSS, J., and COBB, WARREN, Associate Judge, concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 340
Pages: 945–945

Head Matter:
Ronnie WOULARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 76-79.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Nov. 26, 1976.
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Frank B. Kessler, Asst. Public Defender, and Tatjana Ostapoff, Legal Intern, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Richard P. Zaretsky, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
SMITH, ROBERT P., Jr., Associate Judge.
During examination of one of the arresting officers in the State's case in chief, the prosecutor elicited the testimony that, after being suitably cautioned as required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), appellant was asked by the officer,where he had obtained the envelope containing heroin which was taken from him by a search. The officer testified:
"He wouldn't say.
"Q. Did he say anything at all?
"A. Not at that time, no sir."
The prosecutor's examination constituted fundamental error prejudicing appellant's Fifth Amendment rights. United States v. Hale, 422 U.S. 171, 95 S.Ct. 2133, 45 L.Ed.2d 99 (1975); Bennett v. State, 316 So.2d 41 (Fla.1975); Jones v. State, 200 So.2d 574 (Fla.3d DCA 1967).
REVERSED AND REMANDED for a new trial.
CROSS, J., and COBB, WARREN, Associate Judge, concur.