Foreman v. State, J--186
| Decision Date | 10 September 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. J--186,J--186 |
| Citation | 213 So.2d 754 |
| Parties | Lewis FOREMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender; John D. Buchanan, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., David U. Tumin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant was charged and found guilty of breaking and entering the dwelling house of one Edward Rudd with the intent to commit a misdemeanor, to wit: petit larceny.
At the trial of this cause, which was had before a jury in Gadsden County, Florida, the State introduced into evidence over defendant's objection a confession made by the appellant to Sheriff Otho Edwards.
The question raised in this appeal is whether the State properly established that the confession was voluntarily given. Appellant contends that the State failed to prove the question of voluntariness because the only evidence before the court on the point was the conflicting testimony of the Sheriff and the defendant. In those circumstances, appellant urges, the State has failed to carry the burden placed upon it by the United States Supreme Court in the Miranda case to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly waived his privilege against self-incrimination and the right to appointed counsel as pronounced by that court.
In the case at bar, Sheriff Edwards testified that he had given the prescribed warnings to the defendant; that he had read the warnings to defendant from a card on which they were printed and which he carried on his person for the purpose of giving them to persons who were to be interrogated.
Before the confession was admitted into evidence, the trial judge heard testimony on the circumstances under which it was given and decided as a matter of law that it was admissible in evidence as having been voluntarily made. Thereafter the jury was permitted to hear the same evidence and later was instructed that it was to accord the confession such weight as it was entitled to in light of all of the evidence adduced, including the circumstance of the making of said confession. This procedure is in harmony with that approved by the United States Supreme Court in Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908, and has been the law in this State long before Jackson, supra. See Young v. State, 140 So.2d 97 (Fla.1962), and the cases cited therein as well as this court's recent opinion in Young et al. v. State, 213 So.2d 462 opinion filed August 20, 1968.
Stripped to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Paramore v. State, 37178
...to support the finding that the confession was freely and voluntarily made and this finding will not be disturbed. Foreman v. State, 213 So.2d 754 (Fla.App.1st Dist.1968); Young v. State, 140 So.2d 97, 99 Another ground asserted by appellant for excluding the video tape confession is the fa......
-
People v. Parks
...be truthful. Under the circumstances the People sustained their burden of proving a knowing and intelligent waiver. See Foreman v. State (Fla.App.1968), 213 So.2d 754; State v. Briggs (1970), 81 N.M. 581,469 P.2d 730; State v. Givens (1969), 252 Or. 477, 449 P.2d Defendant's final argument ......
-
Jones v. State, 75--768
...227 So.2d 84; Reynolds v. State, Fla.App.1969, 222 So.2d 246; Cameron v. State, Fla.App.1968, 214 So.2d 370; Foreman v. State, Fla.App.1968, 213 So.2d 754; and Barton v. State, Fla.App.1966, 193 So.2d The other points raised on appeal by appellant are also without merit. The record shows th......
-
Almerini v. State, 74-1433
...Judge. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Boyd v. State, Fla.App.1960, 122 So.2d 632; Watson v. State, Fla.1966, 190 So.2d 161; Foreman v. State, Fla.App.1968, 213 So.2d 754; Tegethoff v. State, Fla.App.1969, 220 So.2d 399; Reynolds v. State, Fla.App.1969, 222 So.2d 246; Coppolino v. State, Fla.App.1968......