Beltran v. State, 96-0741
| Decision Date | 08 October 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-0741,96-0741 |
| Citation | 22 Fla. L. Weekly 2347,700 So.2d 132 |
| Parties | 22 Fla. L. Weekly 2347 Francisco BELTRAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
We withdraw our previously issued opinion and substitute the following in its place.
This appeal arises from appellant's conviction for several crimes arising from the sexual battery of appellant's three-month old son. He raises two issues: first, that the trial court erred in refusing to permit an expert to testify at a suppression hearing regarding false confessions and the appellant's vulnerability to making one, and second, that his judgment and sentence for capital sexual battery, aggravated child abuse and attempted second degree murder violates double jeopardy. We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit the testimony and that the convictions and sentences do not violate double jeopardy principles.
This was a terrible crime, and the infant was in danger of death from complications as a result of the attack. Appellant at first denied involvement but later confessed that he had experimented with anal sex with the infant. He later moved to suppress his confession, alleging that it was involuntary because he had been drinking heavily and using drugs the night before and had been questioned for hours. Appellant was examined by a neuropsychologist who testified that he was still intoxicated at the time of his confession. The expert also offered testimony that some people give false confessions. The trial court excluded the testimony but permitted appellant to make a proffer. It then denied the suppression motion.
The case proceeded to trial. Appellant did not testify or present any testimony, relying instead on an attack on the reliability of the confession because of appellant's alleged intoxication and on the suggestion that another person had the opportunity to commit the crime. The jury convicted appellant as charged: of sexual battery on a child under 12; of attempted second degree murder; and of aggravated child abuse.
The appellant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to consider his evidence regarding false confessions proffered at the suppression hearing. We question whether such testimony, which amounts to no more than an expert's assessment that the confession is involuntary, is ever admissible. Cf. Johnson v. State, 438 So.2d 774, 777 (Fla.1983); Bullard v. State, 650 So.2d 631, 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Nevertheless, even if such testimony might be admissible in some cases, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to hear it in this case.
Relying on a study of college students showing the incidence of false "confessions" to "crashing" a computer by hitting the wrong key, the expert was prepared to testify that individuals under stress who are vulnerable and who are provided with misleading or incomplete information can confess to crimes or incidents which they did not commit. Based on the study, her search of information on the Internet about false confessions, and the allegedly misleading information appellant had been given about the condition of the infant, she had "no reason to trust [the appellant's] confession."
While appellant contends that the expert's testimony should have been admitted because she proffered an opinion as to the validity of false confessions, it was nowhere alleged in the motion to suppress or at the hearing that appellant's confession was indeed false. The appellant did not take the stand and declare such, nor was there evidence offered to show its falsity. We agree with the state that without appellant claiming that his confession was false, the proffered testimony was irrelevant and inapplicable to the evidence in the case.
The appellant cites to United States v. Hall, 93 F.3d 1337 (7th Cir.1996), for support for the admission of the expert's testimony. In that case, the appellate court reversed for a new trial where the trial court had excluded proffered expert testimony regarding false confessions. However, the court noted that the expert's testimony in Hall included evidence which "would have let the jury know that a phenomenon known as false confessions exist, how to recognize it, and how to decide whether it fit the facts of the case being tried." Id. at 1345 (emphasis supplied). The expert's testimony in this case provided no methodology or factors for the trial court to rely on in determining whether appellant's confession was a false confession. We cannot understand how the trier of fact should relate a study of college students signing a confession about an act of negligence in hitting the wrong key on a computer to the determination of whether a confession to a capital sexual battery was false. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's refusal to admit such testimony.
We would reiterate that this opinion, with its comments concerning the "false confession" testimony, should not be construed as any approval of the admission of such evidence in any case.
With respect to his conviction and sentence, appellant also argues that his conviction for aggravated child abuse 1 and attempted second degree murder 2 violate double jeopardy in light of his conviction for capital sexual battery 3. Section 775.021(4), Florida Statutes (1995), codifies the Blockburger test, Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932), and provides:
(4)(a) Whoever, in the course of one criminal transaction or episode, commits an act or acts which constitute one or more separate criminal offenses, upon conviction and adjudication of guilt, shall be sentenced separately for each criminal offense; and the sentencing judge may order the sentences to be served concurrently or consecutively. For the purposes of this subsection, offenses are separate if each offense requires proof of an element that the other does not, without regard to the accusatory pleading or the proof adduced at trial.
(b) The intent of the Legislature is to convict and sentence for each criminal offense committed in the course of one criminal episode or transaction and not to allow the principle of lenity as set forth in subsection (1) to determine legislative intent. Exceptions to this rule of construction are:
1. Offenses which require identical elements of proof.
2. Offenses which are degrees of the same offense as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Florida
...injury "are different degrees of the same crime, the legislature may have intended only a single conviction"); Beltran v. State, 700 So.2d 132, 135 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) ("Sexual battery arose from the common law crime of rape and appears to be its own category of core Further, the concern ex......
-
Derrick v. State
..."confessionologist" would even be admissible but do not reach that decision in this postconviction proceeding. See Beltran v. State, 700 So.2d 132, 133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (questioning whether expert testimony regarding the voluntariness of a confession is ever 8. We also reject Derrick's c......
-
Brooks v. State, 98-0940
...Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee. PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See State v. Johnson, 601 So.2d 219 (Fla.1992); Beltran v. State, 700 So.2d 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), and State v. Hines, 695 So.2d 747 (Fla. 1st DCA POLEN, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur. ...
-
Parton v. State , 5D10–3803.
...defendant can be convicted of both sexual battery and battery. See Herrera v. State, 879 So.2d 38 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Beltran v. State, 700 So.2d 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). However, if the battery is based on the same acts that form the basis for the sexual battery, double jeopardy prohibits......
-
A Three-dimensional Model for the Use of Expert Psychiatric and Psychological Evidence in False Confession Defenses Before the Trier of Fact
...right to put forth a defense as required by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. Id. 315. Id. 316. See, e.g.. Beltran v. State, 700 So. 2d 132 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997); State v. Kolb, 930 P.2d 1238 (Wyo. 1996); State v. Tellier, 526 A.2d 941 (Me. 317. 798 A.2d 83, 84 (N.J. Super. Ct. App.......