Foreman v. State, ZZ-228
| Decision Date | 10 July 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. ZZ-228,ZZ-228 |
| Citation | 400 So.2d 1047 |
| Parties | Edward Johnson FOREMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Ronald Dexter Trow, Jacksonville, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Lawrence A. Kaden, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
Edward Johnson Foreman appeals from a judgment and sentence for burglary after a plea of nolo contendere with express reservation of the right to appeal the denial of a motion to suppress his confession. He urges that his oral statement and written confession were induced by direct or implied promises of benefit or reward. We agree and reverse.
The only testimony considered in ruling on the motion to suppress was that of the detective who arrested Foreman and questioned him at the sheriff's office. Although Foreman identifies three verbal exchanges which he urges constituted promises of benefit or reward, we find only one of them to merit discussion. The officer's testimony established that he not only told the defendant that based on his experience as a police officer it was his observation that it is often helpful with the court if a suspect aids in the recovery of the property, is remorseful, and helps get things cleared up, he further and more explicitly told Foreman that he had talked with the victim and if Foreman returned the property, he did not think the victim was inclined to prosecute. In fact, the officer admitted that he "probably led Mr. Foreman to believe that she was not inclined to prosecute were the property returned to her."
The standard for reviewing the voluntariness of a confession is that it "must not be extracted by any sort of threats or violence, nor obtained by direct or implied promises however slight." Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532, 18 S.Ct. 183, 42 L.Ed.2d 568 (1897). (Emphasis supplied) The confession must be excluded if "the attending circumstances, or the declarations of those present at the making of the confession, are calculated to delude the prisoner as to his true position, or to exert improper or undue influence over his mind." Frazier v. State, 107 So.2d 16 (Fla.1958).
Since the question of whether the confession was voluntary is a question of fact and fact questions are usually to be resolved by the trial court, we recognize that the appropriate test for review of a finding of voluntariness is the clear error test. Frazier, supra. In the instant case we find that the conclusions...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. State
...his true position, or to exert improper and undue influence over his mind. Frazier v. State, 107 So.2d 16 (Fla.1958); Foreman v. State, 400 So.2d 1047 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); State v. Beck, 390 So.2d 748 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), rev. denied, 399 So.2d 1140 (Fla.1981). The burden of showing that a d......
-
State v. Slifer
...to overcome free choice in producing a statement after the privilege has been once invoked. (Emphasis supplied). In Foreman v. State, 400 So.2d 1047 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), the court, in considering the voluntariness of a confession, The confession must be excluded if "the attending circumstan......
-
State v. Favaloro, 82-141
...[confessions must be excluded if obtained by declarations calculated to delude defendant as to his true position]; Foreman v. State, 400 So.2d 1047 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) [officer's statement that the victim was inclined not to prosecute if property were returned clearly constitutes an implied......
-
State v. Wilson
...and statements from the deputy that the victim may not prosecute, Wilson made inculpatory statements.2 The facts in Foreman v. State, 400 So.2d 1047 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), are very similar to those in the instant case. In Foreman, a police officer told the defendant that he did not think the ......