Jarriel v. State
| Decision Date | 08 August 1975 |
| Citation | 317 So.2d 141 |
| Parties | Charles Samuel JARRIEL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. No 74--1579. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Philip G. Butler, Jr., of Foley, Colton & Butler, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Frank B. Kessler, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
After Jury trial defendant was found guilty of grand larceny. He appeals his conviction on the ground a statement made by him should have been suppressed. We agree and reverse.
After an officer had contacted defendant's wife to find out where defendant worked, he arrested defendant at this place of employment. Defendant was taken to the Sheriff's office and placed in a room for interrogation, and at no time was he booked or his location disclosed until after his statement had been given. It is undisputed that during interrogation the officer told defendant his wife would be arrested unless they could clear this thing up (by defendant's making a statement). The interrogating officer's testimony included the following:
'Q Did you talk to him and tell him that you could arrest the girls and if he would tell you about the incident you wouldn't have them arrested?
'A Based on what information I had I would have had to arrest his wife unless he could show me that she wasn't involved and that she was along because she was his wife.
'Q And did you tell him that you would only charge him with one incident if he gave you a statement?
It is undisputed that during interrogation the officer told defendant his wife would be arrested unless defendant made a statement. Further, the officer did not deny that he might have told the defendant that he would only charge him with one incident if the defendant would make a statement.
We find that the defendant was improperly urged by direct or implied promises to make a statement, in violation of the basic tenet of law that a confessing defendant should be entirely free from the influence of hope or fear. The resulting statement here should be suppressed on authority of Lynumn v. Illinois, 372 U.S. 528, 83 S.Ct. 917, 9 L.Ed.2d 922 (1963); M.D.B. v. State,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Christopher v. State of Fla.
...that petitioner's confession was voluntary and not coerced. Citing Howell v. State, 66 Fla. 210, 63 So. 421 (1913); Jarriel v. State, 317 So.2d 141 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975) cert. den. 328 So.2d 845 (Fla.1976). Petitioner does not challenge that his confession was made knowingly and intelligently......
-
Stokes v. State
...that marijuana cigarettes were his prompted by police threat to arrest his wife and take his children "to juvenile"); Jarriel v. State, 317 So.2d 141 (Fla.App.1975) (threat to arrest wife unless defendant made statement); Hall v. State, 255 Ind. 606, 266 N.E.2d 16 (1971) (statement made aft......
-
Bova v. State
...to delude the accused or to exert undue influence over him. M. D. B. v. State, 311 So.2d 399 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Jarriel v. State, 317 So.2d 141 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). If the interrogator induces the accused to confess by using language which amounts to a threat or promise of benefit, then t......
-
Christopher v. State
...of a confession is whether it is freely and voluntarily made. Howell v. State, 66 Fla. 210, 63 So. 421 (1913); Jarriel v. State, 317 So.2d 141 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), cert. denied, 328 So.2d 845 Appellant claims improper coercion during the course of the interrogation. A case in which improper......