Dowst v. State
| Decision Date | 19 March 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. X--503,X--503 |
| Citation | 336 So.2d 375 |
| Parties | Rogert L. DOWST, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
John W. Tanner, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
We review a timely appeal from a judgment and sentence on three counts of grand larceny.
The primary issue presented here for determination is whether the trial judge erred in refusing to suppress tape recorded statements of Appellant, typewritten transcriptions of the same, and testimony concerning such statements.
Upon the arrest of the Defendant, he was transported to the Sheriff's Office where it was confirmed that he was sixteen years old. The investigating officer called the Division of Youth Services. The officer was advised by the Division of Youth Services that the Defendant was an escapee from the State training school and was requested to hold him in custody. Prior to any questioning of the Defendant and before he gave the alleged tape recorded confessions, he asked the officer if he could call his parents. He was not permitted to make the telephone call until sometime after he gave the statements in question. Proper and timely objections were made to the introduction in evidence of all the tapes, transcriptions, and conversations relative thereto. Nevertheless, they were admitted in evidence and presented as the major thrust of the State's case against the Defendant.
We are not here concerned with the Defendant's argument that the statements should have been excluded because he was under the influence of some drug. The trial judge heard evidence pro and con on this issue, and the record is sufficient to support his finding in this regard.
The duty of an arresting officer or the interrogating officer, who in this case is the same person, is clearly set forth in Section 39.03(3)(a), Floria Statutes as follows:
'If the person taking the child into custody determines, pursuant to paragraph (c), that the child should be detained or placed in shelter care, he Shall immediately notify the parents or legal custodians of the child . . .' (emphasis ours)
With full knowledge that he held in custody a youth of sixteen years and suspected of the commission of a serious felony, he was mandated by the provisions of the Statute to Immediately notify his parents, or permit the boy to do so. It is not sufficient for the State to argue that notification of the Division of Youth Services satisfied the Statute since the Defendant was an escapee. All that call resulted in was a direction that the Defendant be placed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McIntyre v. State
...self-incrimination. Sublette v. State, 365 So.2d 775 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1978), appeal dismissed, 378 So.2d 349 (Fla.1979); Dowst v. State, 336 So.2d 375 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.), cert. denied, 339 So.2d 1172 (Fla.1976). Thus, when juveniles in custody request an opportunity to talk with their paren......
-
Whisenant v. State, 8 Div. 948
...safeguards must be complied with at the time when the statute dictates and not at the discretion of the arresting officer. Dowst v. State, 336 So.2d 375 (Fla.App.1976). "However, statutory provisions regulating the taking of a juvenile into custody do not forbid custodial questioning of a j......
-
Sublette v. State, s. 77-795
...being specifically requested to do so, and interrogates a child, any statements obtained from him are inadmissible. See Dowst v. State, 336 So.2d 375 (Fla.1st DCA 1976); and § 39.03(3)(a), Fla.Stat. (1975). But cf. Doerr v. State, 348 So.2d 938 (Fla.2d DCA 1977) (no request by child to spea......
-
Allen v. State, 79003
...Sec. 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.2 Sec. 39.037(2), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1990); see J.E.S. v. State, 366 So.2d 538 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Dowst v. State, 336 So.2d 375 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 339 So.2d 1172 (Fla.1976). These last two cases were decided under superseded law, but the statutory language......