Grimsley v. State, 70--578
| Decision Date | 01 September 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 70--578,70--578 |
| Citation | 251 So.2d 671 |
| Parties | Gayle GRIMSLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert E. Jagger, Public Defender, and Frank H. White, Asst. Public Defender, Clearwater, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Warren H. Petersen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Defendant Grimsley appeals from a judgment and sentence entered by the trial Court after a jury had found her guilty of the crime of aggravated assault.
At the hearing on Grimsley's motion to suppress admissions made by her at the police station to Detective Sirmons, the officer testified that he read Miranda warnings to her and then she also read them. He further testified that she said she did not want an attorney at that time. Grimsley testified as follows, in part:
Q. Now at that time did he ask you if you wanted a lawyer?
A. Yes, sir, he did.
Q. And what did you say?
A. Well, I told him I didn't know, because I had never been in trouble before and I didn't know anything about it.
Q. And then what was his response to that?
A. Well, he said, 'Well, do you think you need an attorney or a lawyer to talk with me, to be able to talk with me?' I told him I didn't know, what did he think, and he said, 'I don't know.'
I said, 'Well, do you think I sould tell the truth?' and he said, 'Yes, by all means; the truth would be better than telling a lie because in the end it would show.' So I says--
Q. Okay, and then did you sign that? Did you sign a form?
A. Yes, sir.
In State v. Craig, Fla.1970, 237 So.2d 737, the Supreme Court held that after a defendant has been informed of his right to an attorney, the determination for need of counsel is the defendant's prerogative, and that any clear and unambiguous conduct by a person who has been advised of his rights which indicates his willingness to answer questions without a lawyer is sufficient.
In the case sub judice Grimsley signed the waiver of her rights and proceeded to answer the officer's questions. Such conduct was sufficient to show her willingness to waive counsel and to make a statement. Testimony of her admissions to the police officer was therefore properly admitted.
Grimsley also contends that the lower Court committed reversible error in denying her motion for judgment of acquittal on the ground that a fatal variance existed between the accusation and the proof.
The pertinent part of the information charged that Grimsley 'did unlawfully and feloniously assault one Gladys Graham with a deadly weapon, to-wit: a gun * * * by shooting the said Gladys Graham with said gun * * *.'
Gladys Graham testified that Grimsley fired a gun at her while she was sitting at a table in a bar, but the bullet did...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Johnson
...right to counsel when juvenile defendant inquired of officer whether he could obtain an attorney without cost to him); Grimsley v. State, 251 So.2d 671, 672 (Fla.App.1971) (no invocation of right to counsel where, after being informed of such right, defendant asked officer whether he though......
-
State v. Linden
...(1973) (no invocation of right to counsel when defendant asked how to contact attorney but made no attempt to do so); Grimsley v. State, 251 So.2d 671, 672 (Fla.App.1971) (no invocation of right to counsel where, after being informed of such right, defendant asked officer whether he thought......