Pickett v. State
| Decision Date | 14 September 1967 |
| Docket Number | Nos. I-294,I-295,s. I-294 |
| Citation | 202 So.2d 203 |
| Parties | Eugene PICKETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. Freddie KAISER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
L. Arthur Lawrence, Jr., Live Oak, for appellants.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
In these consolidated appeals the appellants, who were convicted by the Circuit Court for Columbia County of the crime of unlawful attempt to commit a felony (larceny of an automobile) have appealed from their judgments of conviction and sentence.
The basic issue presented for our determination in this appeal is a two-way question: whether the trial evidence was (1) sufficient to support the jury verdict of guilty of the said crime or (2) sufficient to prove the corpus delicti so as to authorize the admission into evidence of the appellants' extra-judicial confessions.
The appellants, Eugene Pickett and Freddie Kaiser, hereinafter referred to as Pickett and Kaiser respectively, or as the defendants when referred to jointly, were jointly charged and tried for the crime of unlawful attempt to commit a felony--larceny of an automobile. At the trial the jury returned a verdict against both of the defendants of guilty of the crime charged.
The evidence at the trial showed the following:
On the night in question the sheriff of Columbia County had in his possession and custody a 1963 Chevrolet automobile, taken in connection with the investigation of a crime unconnected with the case at bar. It was parked in front of the county jail to the right of the front door. At around 11 p.m., the county jailer testified, he was in the jail building and heard a car start. He stepped to the door and saw Pickett in the said automobile, sitting under the steering wheel, and 'getting the car started.' The jailer pulled his gun, ordered Pickett to get out of the car, and put him under arrest. At that Pickett said that he had been told that the car belonged to a man named Ben Johnson and that someone had sent him to get the car. The jailer further testified that he had just entered the jail building with Pickett when Kaiser came to the door and asked the jailer whether he had Pickett inside and whether he could see him. Being answered in the affirmative to both questions, Kaiser came inside and sat down beside Pickett.
The county sheriff testified that Kaiser voluntarily made a statement to him that at the time when Pickett was in the said automobile, he, Kaiser, was squatted down back of a car parked beside the said automobile. There were other pre-trial admissions and statements made by both defendants while in custody in the presence of several law enforcement officers.
As to the extra-judicial statements made by the defendants: The sheriff testified that Pickett stated that he was hired by Ben Johnson from Jacksonville for $50 'to come over here and get the automobile * * *' and that Kaiser and 'another felow' came with him. The sheriff further testified that Kaiser told him 'practically the same thing'--that Johnson was going to pay him, Kaiser, $50 'to come over here and get the automobile. * * *' and made the other statements mentioned above concerning his squatting down behind a nearby car when Pickett was in the automobile in question and concerning his, Kaiser's carrying a .32 caliber pistol.
The trial court's admission of the defendants' extra-judicial statements during the trial is challenged by them in this appeal on the ground that such statements were inadmissible under the established rule that proof of the corpus delicti is a prerequisite to the introduction in evidence of an accused's extra-judicial confession or admission. In the words of the Florida Supreme Court in Smith v. State, 135 Fla. 835, 186 So. 203 (1939): 'An extra-judicial confession should not be admitted in evidence unless the corpus delicti is established by prima facie evidence independent of the extra-judicial confession.'
The critical point in this appeal, however, is the fact that in the trial of the instant case, while there was independent evidence that the crime charged was committed by someone, there was no independent evidence that Kaiser...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ruiz v. State
...at 824, n.2, 825. The language which may suggest otherwise in Daughtry v. State, 65 Fla. 415, 62 So. 345 (1913) and Pickett v. State, 202 So.2d 203, 205 (Fla.1st DCA 1967); see also, McQueen v. State, supra, at 503, refers only to the fact that the identity of the offender need not ordinari......
-
McQueen v. State, 72--777
...as the State contends, the corpus delicti rule does not require the establishment of all the elements of the crime, Pickett v. State, Fla.App.1967, 202 So.2d 203, 205, it does require, at a minimum and as we have seen, proof that a crime has in fact been committed. Sciortino v. State, supra......
-
Robinson v. State, 71--1379
...with the overt act necessary for an attempted larceny. The defendants in Hall v. State, Fla.App.1971. 248 So.2d 524, Pickett v. State, Fla.App.1967, 202 So.2d 203 and Groneau v. State, Fla.App.1967, 201 So.2d 599 were convicted of attempted larceny and these cases taken together can establi......