Rivera Nunez v. State
| Decision Date | 29 October 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 2501,2501 |
| Citation | 227 So.2d 324 |
| Parties | Pedro RIVERA NUNEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Leonard L. Stafford, Public Defender, and Barry G. Roderman, Asst. Public Defender, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and J. Terrell Williams, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, For appellee.
Appellant, charged with second degree murder, tried by jury, found guilty of manslaughter and so adjudged, now brings this direct appeal from the judgment and sentence.
The sole question is whether the court erred in admitting into evidence certain oral and written statements obtained from the appellant during custodial interrogation when appellant had not had the assistance of counsel although some thirty hours prior thereto he had initially stated that he did not want to answer any questions without consulting an attorney.
At the time appellant was arrested he was fully advised of his constitutional rights within the guidelines of Miranda v. Arizona, 1966, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694. This was accomplished through an interpreter, as appellant neither spoke nor understood English and the arresting officers did not speak Spanish, appellant's native tongue. Upon being advised of his constitutional rights, appellant made it clear that he wanted an attorney and that he did not want to discuss with the police officers the matter of the killing until he had talked to a lawyer. Appellant was then incarcerated without further investigation, thereafter remaining in custody.
Approximately 30 hours after his arrest, and without having had the advice of counsel appellant was again interrogated by a police officer with the assistance of an interpreter. At that time, and before the interrogation began, appellant was again advised in detail as to his constitutional rights, following which an inquiry was made as to whether appellant wished to waive such rights and make a statement to the officer. The evidence established that on this occasion appellant clearly understood all of his constitutional rights and indicated his willingness to voluntarily waive such rights and to make a voluntary statement concerning his participation in the killing with which he was charged. The statement which appellant gave at that time and under those circumstances was reduced to writing by a typist as the interrogation was conducted, following which the written statement was read by the interpreter to appellant and approved and signed by him. The written statement together with the interrogating officer's testimony was the evidence to which objection was made and which raises the question on appeal.
Simply stated, the question is whether an accused in custody, having once made known his desire to have the assistance of counsel, may subsequently voluntarily waive such right.
We think this question must be answered in the affirmative, because an accused in custody is just as much entitled to waive the constitutional rights outlined in the Miranda case as he is to insist upon them. 384 U.S. at 479, 86 S.Ct. at 1630, 16 L.Ed.2d at 726. In each case the validity of such a waiver depends upon its meeting the test of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nash v. State
...request for counsel directed to state agents 12 hours earlier); Houston v. Peyton, 297 F.Supp. 717 (W.D.Va.1969); Rivera Nunez v. State, 227 So.2d 324 (Fla.App.1969); Conway v. State, 7 Md.App. 400, 256 A.2d 178 (1969); State v. Oliva, 183 Neb. 620, 163 N.W.2d 112 (1968); State v. Woods, 18......
-
Cribbs v. State, LL-355
...attorney. Jackson v. State, 359 So.2d 1190 (Fla.1978), Cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1102, 99 S.Ct. 881, 59 L.Ed.2d 63 (1979); Nunez v. State, 227 So.2d 324 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969); Battle v. State, 338 So.2d 1107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). However, the present case is significantly different from those in w......
-
Nettles v. State
...passage mean that the police officer could cease questioning and then resume it after only a momentary respite. In Rivera Nunez v. State, 227 So.2d 324 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969), the court addressed the admissibility of a confession obtained after the defendant initially stated he did not want to......
-
Stone v. State
...his guilt. Even had he requested consultation with an attorney, that would not prohibit a subsequent waiver. In Nunez v. State, 227 So.2d 324 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969), the court Simply stated, the question is whether an accused in custody, having once made known his desire to have the assistance......