Collins v. State

Decision Date21 October 1969
Docket NumberNo. 68--1107,68--1107
Citation227 So.2d 538
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals
PartiesHarry COLLINS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Phillip Carlton, Jr., and George D. Gold, Miami, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C.J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was indicted for first degree murder. He pled not guilty by reason of insanity. Trial before a jury resulted in a verdict of guilty, with a recommendation of mercy. A mandatory life sentence followed. The defendant appealed.

The sole contention made here is that the trial court committed reversible error in allowing the use, as evidence bearing on the issue of insanity, of a statement volunteered by the appellant at the time of his arrest, when advised of his rights (a la Miranda) including a right to an attorney, 'I know. I guess I will have to get a lawyer.'

The sufficiency of the evidence otherwise was not challenged. The facts of the homicide were not in dispute. The appellant shot and killed his wife in the presence of his son-in-law, in the latter's home in which his wife was then residing. He remained there until a police officer arrived. The officer, upon being informed as to what had occurred, placed the appellant under arrest and informed him sufficiently as to his rights, in the course of which, with respect to advice as to entitlement to a lawyer, the appellant made the statement above quoted of an awareness of the advisability of obtaining counsel. After advising the appellant of his rights the arresting officer did not interrogate him.

At the trial, in rebuttal of testimony presented on behalf of the defendant on the issue of insanity, the state brought out the statement in question, including it in hypothetical questions which were propounded to expert witnesses.

On behalf of the appellant it is contended that his statement about obtaining a lawyer could not properly be revealed, as bearing on his sanity or insanity, because the statement dealt with an election to avail himself of a constitutionally provided right to counsel. As authority to support that contention the appellant cited Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697; Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247, and Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 14 L.Ed.2d 106. Those cases do not appear applicable to this situation. The Jones case is not in point. In Simmons, the Supreme...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Blatch v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 21 Octubre 1980
    ...non-testimonial nature of the confession, does not implicate self-incrimination rights under the Fifth Amendment. See Collins v. State, 227 So.2d 538 (Fla.3d DCA 1969). See also Greenfield v. State, 337 So.2d 1021 (Fla.2d DCA 1976). It does instead present a Fourth Amendment claim. If the i......
  • Van Scyoc v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 10 Enero 1978
    ...3d DCA 1968); Powers v. State, 224 So.2d 411 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); Chariott v. State, 226 So.2d 359 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); Collins v. State, 227 So.2d 538 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); Arrington v. State, 233 So.2d 634 (Fla.1970); Wimes v. State, 243 So.2d 443 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Wheeler v. State, 311 So.......
  • Blakley v. State, 77-2076
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 19 Julio 1978
    ...assume the refusal of the accused to make a statement is admissible on the issue of insanity, as it was found to be in Collins v. State, 227 So.2d 538 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1969). I see no reason to further compound the problem by allowing its admission before the defendant has made an issue of his......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT