Fla. Stat, (1981) - Florida State University College of Law

More documents

Recommendations

Info

then ''told him what I had through investigation lmed, I' and the defendant - corrected the officer, Jmes, sqra, at 639640, The explanatory staterrents mde by the defendant were suppressed because it was obvious that the police officer was subtly trying to obtain incriminating statments. The state cannot justify the use of the sarne tactic mdm& in Jones simply because it occurred prior to giving Mirarlda warnings rather than afterwan The tactic is mre likely to elicit a response when used as Detective Bradley did here, Without benefit of Miranda at all. To permit the use of such tactics to obtain statmnts from arrested suspects muld ''place a p rdm on the ingenuity of the police to devise mthds of indirect interrogation, rather than to i.qlemen-t: the plain mdate of Ivliranda". 3, quoting from comnoriwealth v. Hamilton, 445 Pa. 292, 297, 285 A. 2d 172, 175, Innis, supra, at 1689, footnote --r*- This practice cannot be condoned, The defendant's statants to Bradley should be been suppressed. kvasal is mandated. THE TRI74L COURT EXRED IN PEXFUIITTING THE STATE TD USE 7HE D ' S S T F i m M E AT HIS AFBEST FOR AN UNREXATED OF"SE AS JWLDENCE OF GUILT, AND IN SO INSTRUCTING THE JUHY, IN VIOLATION OF 'IHE DEFENXNT'S DUE PEEOCESS RIW To A FAIR T R Y Y ; A S G U A R A N T E E D B Y T H E ~ ~ ~ T O THF, U.S . M>NsTImIoN ?WD AETICLE 1, SECTION 9 OF THE JXORIDA CQNSTITUTION. me state introduced, through the testhny of Etective Bradley, allegedly false exculpatory statmats that were mde when the defendant was arrested by Bradley for an aggravated assault against Lewis Bradley. IT. 197- 198, 200-201, 1650). The statants were made in response to Bradley explaining to the defmdant the circmnsbnces of the aggravated assault incident as he knew it. (T, 209-210), The trial court granted, over objection, the State's &quested Jury Znstruct2on No, 7 (R, 323, T, 2098-2102, 2122-2123)" 'Ihe prosecu~r argued the statmmts as evidence of guilt. (T, 6165-2166, 21771 Page -66-
'BE general rule is that statements of a defendant that relate to collateral tribes are inadmissible unless relevant tc~ p m any facts in issue More the jury. Green v; SWte, 190 So. 2d 42 CFla, 2nd D,C.A. 1966); Curry _*_ _Ice v, State, 355 So. 2d 462 (Fla, 2nd D,C,A. 1978) I A statement is not relevant simply because the defendant was heard ta utter it, wen though it my have to do with the offense for which the defendant is m trial, Jenkins v. State, 177 So, 2d 756 (Fla. 3rd D,C.A. 1965); CMns v, State, 273 So. 2d 788 (Fla, 4th 1Ic_ - . D,C.A. 1973); Wride v. State, 338 So, 2d 567 {Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1976). - Here, the defendant's statements about having nothing to do with guns cam in resmnse to the detective's telling him the allegations of an aggravated assault at Lwis Bradley's house. The statenmts can in no way be considered a false exculpatory statmwnt about the three hCanicides that occurred before the incident at the Bradleys' haw. The kcides were rot: mentioned to the defendant, nor was he under arrest for any homicide, nor was he questioned about his activities during the times when the hmicides occurred. The marginal probative value of the stata-ents was far outweighed by the prejudicial effect upon the jury when CcBnpOunded by the court's instruction. The resoedy is a new trial, - See Green, supra, During the testhny of state witness Denise Long, counsel atterpted to cross-be her h t the fact that she was on probation, (.T. 1626). The state's objection was sustained. (T, 1626-1627) The general rule is that counsel is to be allowed great latitude in cmss-exWbat3on into the areas of bias, interest, prejudice or corruption. HamDn v. - State, 394 So, 2d 121 (Na? 1st D,C,A, 1980). .Matters tending to shm Page -67-
Page 1 and 2:
RPPEAL FffQM THE CIRCUIT COURIT OF
Page 3 and 4:
V TRIAL COuIiT EXRED IN FAILING TO
Page 5 and 6:
UNRELATED O??F'ENSE AS EVIDENCE OF
Page 7 and 8:
ACEEY. mm, 33tlTo~7"T% (Fla. 4th ;D
Page 9 and 10:
c?JME3IEV. smm 345 So. 2 d m CURRYV
Page 11 and 12:
i%W'HW v. STATE j// So'.' 2d 7807Fl
Page 13 and 14:
MCMILLANV. smm 4119 So. 2d 1-la. 3r
Page 15 and 16:
0 PRamCE v. STATE 337 So, 2d 7 n l
Page 17 and 18:
mmv, STATE 2d =la. 1st D.C.A, 1982)
Page 19 and 20:
0 INTRODUCTION The appellant, Fbber
Page 21 and 22:
of Other Crbs, Wrongs, or Acts. (R.
Page 23 and 24:
0 (T. 1128-1129).crooVer said nothi
Page 25 and 26:
0 going to kill "the mther fucker",
Page 27 and 28:
this would alleviate any problem be
Page 29 and 30:
took out his knife and stabbed Padg
Page 31 and 32:
(T, 1342-1343). mng's rmther disapp
Page 33 and 34: he said it, "nobdy paid any mbd to
Page 35 and 36: told the defendant to "back off". (
Page 37 and 38: and said, Yh ny God". (T. 1260). tw
Page 39 and 40: out of the cay. and walked around b
Page 41 and 42: WHEXFER THE THE JUHI UPON THE LAW Q
Page 43 and 44: IX X WHlTIWB THE TRIAL ERRED IN m I
Page 45 and 46: XVIII WHEXfER THE TRUG COUW: FBRED
Page 47 and 48: they were afraid of being killed by
Page 49 and 50: ut munsel could not argue it becaus
Page 51 and 52: to the co-defendant, who continued
Page 53 and 54: participate in the killing, 2. If t
Page 55 and 56: Brother Caps. (T. 1185) (4). the de
Page 57 and 58: So. 2d 583 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1983).
Page 59 and 60: EXPW AND JTETIFY PLEA BARWWNG WITH
Page 61 and 62: type of rebuke counsel received. on
Page 63 and 64: utilized the stature of his office
Page 65 and 66: likewise improper for the State Att
Page 67 and 68: Payment of mney to a witness for an
Page 69 and 70: the prosecutor informed a juror onc
Page 71 and 72: the fiream or threatened Padgett wi
Page 73 and 74: from the operation of discowry rule
Page 75 and 76: I resides. Stanley, supra; - Florid
Page 77 and 78: Pernutting the reputation testby. o
Page 79 and 80: little probative value w kn it is c
Page 81 and 82: - The fact that a defendant refused
Page 83: The United States Supre court has s
Page 87 and 88: The general rule is that a witness'
Page 89 and 90: any person the defense "expects to
Page 91 and 92: CR, 6167 T, 58-7 Penalty (R. 16-31
Page 93 and 94: Sheppard's necklace and ring me tak
Page 95 and 96: (-TT* 1032, 10491. An execution-sty
Page 97 and 98: (5) W ilm Urgmn, the defendant's si
Page 99 and 100: The defense also argued for mitigat
Page 101 and 102: mitigating circumstance in a capita
Page 103: CFRI'IFICATE OF SERVTCE I HEREBY CE
show all

Fla. Stat, (1981) - Florida State University College of Law

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?