Rosher v. State
Decision Date | 10 September 1975 |
Docket Number | 74--1196,Nos. 74--1195,s. 74--1195 |
Citation | 319 So.2d 150 |
Parties | Alfred Lee ROSHER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Joseph F. McDermott, of McDermott & Ohle, St. Petersburg, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corces, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Appellant was found guilty of second degree murder by a jury. On appeal, he claims that certain statements made by him should not have been admitted into evidence.
At trial the testimony of Detective Crawford was proffered out of the presence of the jury. Crawford stated that while appellant was at the booking desk subsequent to his arrest, Arthur Copeland, a co-defendant, was brought from his cell to the booking area. Crawford stated that Copeland pointed to appellant and said, 'That's the man that killed the old man,' and that appellant replied, Crawford testified that he was aware that Copeland knew appellant personally, but stated that the only purpose for the confrontation was to have Copeland positively identify appellant:
Prior to the confrontation, appellant had been advised of his constitutional rights, had expressed a desire to remain silent, and had requested that an attorney be appointed for him. Thereafter, questioning of appellant had ceased.
Appellant's motion to suppress his statements was denied by the trial court, stating:
'However I believe that the defendant Rosher had been adequately and properly advised of his constitutional rights prior to this event occurring and that this was a spontaneous statement made on his part to his co-defendant that perhaps should not have been made.'
Upon the return of the jury, Detective Crawford repeated his testimony before it.
Appellant contends that his statements were taken in violation of his rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution. He claims that his statements were the result of 'custodial interrogation' after the exercise of his right to remain silent in violation of the dictates of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Further, appellant claims that his statements were made under circumstances similar to those in Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964).
Escobedo, Supra, is not on point. There, petitioner testified that during the course of the investigation he repeatedly asked to speak to his lawyer and that the police informed him that his lawyer 'didn't want to see' him. The testimony of the police officers involved confirmed this fact. In reality, petitioner's counsel was present and had repeatedly expressed a desire to see his client. A police officer testified that during the interrogation of petitioner, the following occurred:
Thereafter, petitioner made additional statements further implicating himself in the murder plot. At no time prior to making any of these statements was petitioner advised of his constitutional right to remain silent.
While the statements complained of in Escobedo and in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hayward v. State
...808, 810 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (holding that spontaneous statements are not always the product of an interrogation); Rosher v. State, 319 So.2d 150, 152 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975) ("Spontaneous statements are admissible in evidence [when they] are not the product of interrogation."). Based on the for......
-
State v. McLean
...escort an accused to a confrontation with a codefendant (People v. Doss, 44 Ill.2d 541, 256 N.E.2d 753 (1970); see also Rosher v. State, 319 So.2d 150 (Fla.App.1975)), tell a defendant what statements have been made by a codefendant (Howell v. State, 5 Md.App. 337, 247 A.2d 291 (1968)), or ......
-
Thompson v. State
...interrogation. Hayward v. State, 24 So.3d 17, 36 (Fla.2009), as revised on denial of reh'g (Dec. 10, 2009) (quoting Rosher v. State, 319 So.2d 150, 152 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975) ). The determination of whether the evidence should have been suppressed depends on the type of encounter that occurred ......
-
Brey v. State, 78-2727
...MR. SPRINGER: Miranda, I can cite some cases on. Brown v. State, which is reported at 222 So.2d 793 (Fla.App.) 1969, and Rosher v. State, 319 So.2d 150 (Fla.App.) I will show these to the Court. Where testimony is not a part of in-custody, custodial interrogation, and where they are spontan......