Butler v. State, 88-1212
| Decision Date | 13 June 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-1212,88-1212 |
| Citation | 544 So.2d 1115,14 Fla. L. Weekly 1462 |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1462 Nathaniel BUTLER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Hamar and Hamar and Richard Hamar, Miami, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Julie S. Thornton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before NESBITT, FERGUSON and LEVY, JJ.
The defendant appeals his first-degree murder conviction. For the following reasons, we reverse and remand for new trial.
Nathaniel Butler was stopped by detectives based upon their "hunch" that Butler was involved in a shooting. Butler was first detained on the street by police using their vehicle's blue light and siren. He was searched and separated from his money, keys, and car. He was taken by police to the station house where he was then interrogated in a small room without windows or phone. He was never told he could make a phone call. He was not given his Miranda rights until sometime later. While the interrogating officer testified that in his mind Butler was free to leave at any time, the record shows that this fact was never communicated to Butler.
A station house interrogation is inherently more coercive than an interrogation in other less suggestive settings and may lead reasonable persons to believe their freedom of action is restricted in a significant way. Elkin v. State, 531 So.2d 219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), citing Drake v. State, 441 So.2d 1079, 1081 (Fla.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 978, 104 S.Ct. 2361, 80 L.Ed.2d 832 (1984). Therefore, we conclude that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence at trial Butler's statement made during this interrogation.
Next, in a photo lineup weeks after the incident, the driver and passenger of a vehicle which passed the scene of the shooting identified Butler as the shooter. Butler claims error due to the suggestive tactics employed by police for this identification. We agree. The analysis of error in an alleged photo identification is a two-step procedure:
1) Did the police employ an unnecessarily suggestive procedure in obtaining an out of court identification; 2) if so, considering all of the circumstances, did the suggestive procedure give rise to a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.
Grant v. State, 390 So.2d 341, 343 (Fla.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 913, 101 S.Ct. 1987, 68 L.Ed.2d 303 (1981).
In the instant case, police officers told the witnesses that the perpetrator was in the photo lineup. Also, in that lineup only the defendant wore distinctive clothing which had been described by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Kurylczyk
...boards around their necks. The court found that this was impermissibly suggestive. Id., p. 301. 4 See also Butler v. State, 544 So.2d 1115 (Fla.App., 1989) (a photographic array was found to have been impermissibly suggestive because only the defendant wore the distinctive clothing describe......
-
Noe v. State
...is inherently more coercive than interrogation in other less suggestive settings. Drake; B.S., 548 So.2d at 839; Butler v. State, 544 So.2d 1115, 1116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Thus, the location of the interrogation will have a significant bearing on the reasonableness of an individual's belief ......
-
State v. Alioto, 90-1628
...questioning at a person's home or place of business is likely to be less so. See Jenkins, 533 So.2d at 300. See also Butler v. State, 544 So.2d 1115 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). The order in the instant case indicates that the trial court was led into applying the four-prong analysis rather than the......
-
Fisher v. State
...the photo was not a mug shot and did not stand out from the others, the cases Fisher cites are inapposite. Cf. Butler v. State, 544 So.2d 1115, 1116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Lock v. State, 799 So.2d 384, 386 (Fla. 4th DCA Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the phot......