Schneble v. State
| Decision Date | 13 November 1968 |
| Docket Number | 35096,Nos. 35092,s. 35092 |
| Citation | 215 So.2d 611 |
| Parties | Donald Felix SCHNEBLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. Edward Frank SNELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Clyde B. Wells, De Funiak Springs, for Donald Felix Schneble.
Angus G. Andrews, De Funiak Springs, for Edward Frank Snell.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and George R. Georgieff, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
We have this cause on remand by the Supreme Court of the United States for further consideration in the light of Bruton v. United States. 1
Defendants below, Donald Felix Schneble and Edward Frank Snell, were found guilty of murder in the first degree by a jury, without recommendation of mercy, and sentenced to death. The evidence, corroborated by defendants, is that defendants and Maxine Ramona Collier, the victim, traveled along the Gulf Coast from New Orleans to a point in Walton County, Florida, where Mrs. Collier was killed by the defendants. The defendants put the body in the trunk of the automobile and hauled it to Hillsborough County where it was discarded in a trash dump. They then drove to the Keys and back northward to Palm Beach County where they were halted by a patrol officer because of defective lights. With permission of defendant Snell, the driver, the officer entered the car to drive it off the roadway and, in doing so, observed a gun. Both defendants were held on various charges. The officers, in the course of their inquiry touching suspicious circumstances, including bloodstains and the ownership of the automobile, queried defendants about the disappearance of Mrs. Collier.
Defendant Schneble's confession was complete in detail as to the killing and the disposition of the body. He disclosed and accompanied the officers to its location and the place where the murder was committed.
Schneble's confession implicated defendant Snell and Snell, when advised as to Schneble's action, implicated himself. That both defendants, prior to interrogation, were several times properly advised as to their rights to counsel and to remain silent is not questioned.
We have with care re-examined the record in the light of the Bruton decision, supra. In the joint trial of Bruton and one Evans, at which Evans did not testify, Evans' confession, implicating Bruton, was admitted. A prior confession by Evans had been held unconstitutional. The trial court instructed the jury that although Evans' later confession was competent as against Evans, it was inadmissible hearsay against Bruton and must be disregarded in determining Bruton's guilt or innocence. Both were convicted. The Court of Appeals reversed Evans' conviction, on the ground that his second confession was tainted by his prior unconstitutional confession, but affirmed Bruton's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schneble v. Florida 8212 5009
...completely comported with the objective evidence, and the comparatively insignificant effect of the codefendant's admission. Pp. 429—432. 215 So.2d 611, Clyde B. Wells, DeFuniak Springs, Fla., for petitioner. George R. Georgieff, Washington, D.C., for respondent. Mr. Justice REHNQUIST deliv......
-
State v. Stubbs
...We considered a similar question in Schneble v. State, 201 So.2d 881 (1967), reversed on remand from the United States Supreme Court, 215 So.2d 611 (1968). In that case, a defendant confessed to homicide, after being told his co-defendant had confessed in detail. We held on reconsideration ......
-
Jones v. State, 2324
...2 Cir. 1969, 406 F.2d 741, and Chapman v. State of California, 1967, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705.4 See also Schneble v. State, Fla.1968, 215 So.2d 611.5 Stubbs v. State, Fla.App.1969, 222 So.2d ...
-
State v. Garcia
...proceeding and retroactive, this cause must be reversed for a new trial. See also Schneble v. State, Fla.1967, 201 So.2d 881; Schneble v. State, Fla., 215 So.2d 611; Stubbs v. State, Fla.App.1969, 222 So.2d 228.' The state here asserts that the decisions below are in conflict with Hawkins v......