Hill v. State
| Decision Date | 06 June 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 68--536,68--536 |
| Citation | 223 So.2d 548 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Earl E. HILL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Robert E. Jagger, Public Defender, and Joseph F. McDermott, Asst. Public Defender, Clearwater, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William D. Roth, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.
Appellant Earl E. Hill appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence, consequent upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of manslaughter.
Only one question is urged before this Court on appeal, and that is whether it is necessary, in order to render admissible an oral confession made by the accused soon after his arrest at the scene of the homicide, that he give an affirmative waiver in some positive form, either verbal or written, of his right to counsel before being interrogated, in addition to the usual cautionary 'Miranda warnings' by the officer. We hold that Miranda does not require such affirmative response of express waiver by the accused.
The St. Petersburg police department got a telephoned report about 9 P.M. on March 27, 1968, indicating a homicide at the home of one Engel at 844 1/2 Tenth Avenue South, in that city. By radio and otherwise, several officers converged on the scene and were admitted into the home by defendant Hill, who led them into the living room of the cottage, thence into a bedroom where the body of deceased Robert W. Engel was lying on a bed with a bullet wound 'high on the forehead'. Officer Butler asked Hill 'where the gun was' and Hill nodded his head toward a second small bedroom into which the officers and Hill proceeded, finding a small calibre revolver laying on a bureau in that room. Officer Frank asked Hill 'what had happened', and Hill stated that he had 'gotten agitated and that he did it'. Frank then placed Hill under arrest for first degree murder, and after giving him the usual 'Miranda warning' took him 'from the east bedroom into the living room and seated him on a couch to await transportation to the police station'. Patrolman Foster, one of the arresting officers, stated that 'as he (Hill) was sitting on the couch, he started talking as if talking to himself. He stated that, 'I have taken care of him for a long time'. Then he paused and said * * * 'I killed him ". About midnight that night Hill was taken to the 'interrogation room' of the city jail, where City Detective Allen 'read him his rights to him, which we have a standard form, and he agreed to talk to me without having a lawyer present'. No secretaries were there, so the next morning about 9 A.M. Hill signed a written statement admitting the killing--after of course, the usual 'Miranda warning'.
Thereafter, information charging murder in the second degree was filed against Hill and on July 1, 1968, trial was held, resulting in a jury verdict of guilt of manslaughter. Upon adjudication of guilt and sentence Hill has appealed to this Court and, as previously stated, urges as his sole contention that he never affirmatively, by word of mouth or in writing, waived his right to counsel. It might be here noted that the record indicates that, in the written statement taken at the detective bureau as aforesaid, which was in the form of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Matthews
...them.' That rule was followed in People v. Jarvis (1969), 276 A.C.A. 534, 80 Cal.Rptr. 832. There was a similar holding in Hill v. State (Fla.App.1969), 223 So.2d 548 where the court said p. 'Therefore, Miranda does not require any affirmative oral or written waiver of counsel by the accuse......
-
Davis v. State, Q-67
...in cases subsequent to Miranda have held that such affirmative waivers are not required after making a signed waiver. In Hill v. State, 223 So.2d 548 (Fla.App.1969), the court held that Miranda does not require affirmative response or express waiver. So have the federal courts. United State......
-
Jordan v. State
...has been given. See Davis v. State, 275 So.2d 575 (1st D.C.A. Fla.1973), Cert. denied, 280 So.2d 684 (Fla.1973); Hill v. State, 223 So.2d 548 (3d D.C.A. Fla.1969). In United States v. Hayes, 385 F.2d 375, 377 (4th Cir. 1967), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit made it......
-
State v. Lopez, 93-621
...969 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Von Horn v. State, 334 So.2d 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 341 So.2d 1086 (Fla.1977); Hill v. State, 223 So.2d 548 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969). (4) The defendant was seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when he was subjected to custodial interrogation begi......