Alley v. State, 88-0993
| Decision Date | 06 December 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-0993,88-0993 |
| Citation | 553 So.2d 354,14 Fla. L. Weekly 2789 |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2789 Carmen ALLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Kayo E. Morgan, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Carol Asbury and Celia A. Terenzio, Asst. Attys. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
Appellant's motion for clarification is granted in part. Appellee's motion for rehearing is granted. We substitute the following opinion:
Appellant appeals her conviction and sentence for Driving Under the Influence Manslaughter.
At the scene of the automobile pedestrian accident, after the investigating officer asked appellant to submit to a blood alcohol test, appellant gave incriminating statements concerning her drinking prior to the accident and her reasons for refusing to take the test. 1 The trial judge refused to suppress the statements and allowed them to be heard by the jury.
We affirm as to all issues 2 but one. We address whether appellant's statements at the scene and later at a medical clinic were given during the accident report phase of the investigation and, therefore, privileged and statutorily inadmissible. § 316.066(4), Fla.Stats. (1987).
We conclude the trial judge committed reversible error by admitting appellant's privileged statements. Yost v. State, 542 So.2d 419 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). There is substantial competent evidence to conclude the accident investigation phase continued until the officer gave appellant her Miranda warnings at the medical clinic. Brackin v. Boles, 452 So.2d 540, 543 (Fla.1984). Appellant made the questioned statements during the accident phase of the investigation.
Unlike the defendant in Kornegay v. State, 520 So.2d 681, 683 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), appellant offered no testimony during the trial which rendered the admission of the privileged statements harmless error. Considering the content and the inflammatory nature of the privileged statements, we cannot conclude there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to appellant's conviction. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1138 (Fla.1986).
Accordingly, we reverse appellant's conviction, vacate her sentence, and remand for a new trial.
1 Appellant stated she had been drinking all night, all that day, and the night before, and she knew a blood test would "nail" her.
2...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Riley
...and statements made during a criminal investigation. Kornegay v. State, 520 So.2d 681 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). But see Alley v. State, 553 So.2d 354 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), rev. denied, 563 So.2d 634 (Fla.1990), and West v. State, 553 So.2d 254, 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), disapproved, State v. Norst......
-
Norstrom v. State, 89-1966
...such testimony violated section 316.066(4). See also Thomas v. Gottlieb, 520 So.2d 622 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). In Alley v. State, 553 So.2d 354 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), rev. denied, 563 So.2d 634 (Fla.1990), appellant appealed her conviction for driving under the influence-manslaughter. At the sce......
-
Alley v. State, 91-2546
...trial. The trial court entered these orders after appellant was retried on remand pursuant to this court's mandate in Alley v. State, 553 So.2d 354 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). I would affirm the trial court in every respect, and feel compelled to address the majority's reversal on appellant's fift......