Lee v. State
| Decision Date | 20 September 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-705,77-705 |
| Parties | Willie James LEE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Marc E. Kirk, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Benedict P. Kuehne, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Defendant appeals his conviction and a 15-year sentence on a charge of first degree arson and raises two points. The first point relates to the introduction of a confession given without Miranda warnings. The second point relates to the trial court's failure to instruct on circumstantial evidence. We reverse on both grounds.
Defendant was incarcerated in the Orange County Jail awaiting sentencing on an unrelated charge. A mattress fire occurred in the defendant's cell. Defendant was handcuffed, removed from the cell, and placed in a holding cell on another floor in the jail.
The correctional officers in the jail facility extinguished the mattress fire which was not of a serious nature. They subsequently began an investigation. Clearly, the defendant/appellant was the focus of this investigation. Defendant was questioned but was not given any warning as required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). During this questioning, defendant admitted setting the fire.
Before trial, defendant's motion to suppress the confession was denied. The case proceeded to trial and the corrections officer was allowed to testify as to defendant's confession. The other evidence in the case was that the fire occurred in defendant's cell, defendant was the sole occupant of the cell, and defendant was found with a book of matches in his hand. The trial court refused to instruct on circumstantial evidence despite defense counsel's request.
Under the facts of this case, the trial court erroneously denied the defendant's motion to suppress and prejudicial error occurred when the defendant's confession was allowed in evidence in the State's case in chief. This has been established in Mathis v. United States, 391 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1503, 20 L.Ed.2d 381 (1968) as adopted by the Florida Supreme Court in Young v. State, 234 So.2d 341 (Fla.1970), where a defendant in custody on another charge was questioned without Miranda warnings. In the circumstances of this case it is clear that the defendant was the focus of custodial interrogation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dunn v. State
...admissibility is not challenged on appeal. This confession of guilt constituted direct, not circumstantial, evidence. Lee v. State, 362 So.2d 692 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); McCormick, Handbook of the Law of Evidence § 185 (2d ed. 1972). Even in the absence of the confession, we would still affirm......
-
Williams v. State, 61549
...1014 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), petition denied, 412 So.2d 468 (Fla.1982); Perez v. State, 371 So.2d 714 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Lee v. State, 362 So.2d 692 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); and Newsome v. State, 355 So.2d 483 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), disagreed with, Miller v. State, 403 So.2d 1014 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)......
-
R. A. B. v. State, 78-2200
...to leave is "an illusory freedom, within the context of (the defendant's) imprisonment," Young v. State, supra. See also Lee v. State, 362 So.2d 692 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Thus, under the per se Mathis-Young rule, once it appears that the defendant is a suspect and is in custody for an unrela......