Court Opinion

ID: 9673178
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:07:45.604591+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:20.512998
License: Public Domain

On Application for Rehearing
JOHNSON, Judge.
The contention that the remarks of the district attorney in his opening statement to the jury, to-wit, “This defendant, along with three other hoys, who have already pled guilty, were indicted at the Spring Session of the Grand Jury * * * ” were not prejudicial to appellant is renewed at this time; however, we cannot agree with this contention.
1 The case of Thomas v. State, Fla.App., 202 So.2d 883, states in part as follows:
“As a general rule, it is improper for a prosecuting attorney to disclose during trial that another defendant had been convicted or has pleaded guilty. This is because competent and satisfactory evidence against one person charged with an offense is not necessarily so against another person charged with the same offense. Each person charged with the commission of an offense must be tried upon evidence legally tending to show his guilt or innocence. See State v. Gargano, 99 Conn. 103, 121 A. 657 (1923) ; Gray v. State, 221 Md. 286, 157 A.2d 261 (1960); Cameron v. State, 153 Tex.Cr. R. 29, 217 S.W.2d 23; Annotation, 48 A.L.R.2d 1017.”
See also the Alabama case, Lane v. State, supra.
We feel that the above remarks made by the district attorney could possibly have prejudiced the appellant and the application for rehearing is overruled.
Application overruled.