Hoskins v. State
| Decision Date | 12 March 1968 |
| Docket Number | 67--180,Nos. 67--179,s. 67--179 |
| Citation | 208 So.2d 145 |
| Parties | John B. HOSKINS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Engel & Pollack and Jack J. Taffer, Miami, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen. and Arden M. Siegendorf, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before CHARLES CARROLL, C.J., and BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.
Appellant seeks reversal of his conviction and sentence after a jury verdict, for the crime of rape.
He claims reversible error was committed by the trial court in not suppressing an oral statement made after his arrest to a police officer. We find no error in this regard. See Narro v. United States, 370 F.2d 329 (5th Cir.1966).
He further argues that his arrest was illegal and that the trial court should have suppressed from evidence a beige hose stocking found on him when he was searched.
The record shows that the officer initially informed the appellant that the arrest was 'for prowling'. The record reflects there was probable cause for an arrest of the appellant herein and an improper label will not make an arrest illegal which was based on probable cause. Chippas v. State, Fla.App.1965, 180 So.2d 355; Ralph v. Pepersack, 335 F.2d 128 (4th Cir. 1964); Bell v. United States, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 383, 254 F.2d 82 (1958).
The appellant also seeks reversal because the trial court failed to give an instruction to the jury of the weight to be given by it to the appellant's confession. He did not seek such an instruction at trial and, therefore, reversible error was not committed in this regard, Fla.Stat. § 918.10(4), F.S.A. See also Hamilton v. State, Fla.App.1963, 152 So.2d 793.
Error is claimed in that the trial judge did not explicitly determine whether the statement of the defendant was voluntarily given before admitting it into evidence. The voluntariness of the confession was properly determined. See Sims v. State of Georgia, 385 U.S. 538, 87 S.Ct. 639, 17 L.Ed.2d 593 (1967); Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964); Brown v. State, Fla.App.1966, 181 So.2d 578; Rollins v. State, Fla.App.1965, 179 So.2d 377.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gladding
...Gibson for loitering and prowling, rather than possession, Maddox v. State, 236 So.2d 469 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970); Hoskins v. State, 208 So.2d 145 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1968). Hence, the court also rightly refused to suppress additional heroin and a quantity of cocaine which was discovered upon a searc......
-
Moss v. State, 86-310
...1985); Thomas v. State, 395 So.2d 280, 281 (Fla.3d DCA 1981); Gibson v. State, 368 So.2d 667, 668 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); Hoskins v. State, 208 So.2d 145, 146 (Fla.3d DCA), cert. denied, 214 So.2d 622 (Fla.1968); see D.A. v. State, 471 So.2d 147 (Fla.3d DCA 1985), (d) the police lawfully obtaine......
-
Sloan v. State, AH-358
...DCA 1975); State v. Foust, 262 So.2d 686 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1972); Chaney v. State, 237 So.2d 281 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970); and Hoskins v. State, 208 So.2d 145 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1968).6 Additional facts in the Johnson case, as recited in the opinion of the state court on appeal, are that the police offic......
-
Gibson v. State, s. 77-1781
...Gibson for loitering and prowling, rather than possession. Maddox v. State, 236 So.2d 469 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970); Hoskins v. State, 208 So.2d 145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968), cert. denied, 214 So.2d 622 (Fla.1968). Hence, the court also rightly refused to suppress additional heroin and a quantity of co......