Scott v. State
| Decision Date | 22 December 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 1D13–4492.,1D13–4492. |
| Citation | 151 So.3d 567 |
| Parties | Amato SCOTT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Paula S. Saunders, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Michael McDermott, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Appellant challenges his conviction for second-degree murder. He argues the trial court erred in denying his motions to suppress two separate statements made to the police. We determine both the April 27, 2012, and April 29, 2012, statements were obtained in violation of appellant's right to remain silent. We also determine the State failed to establish that erroneous admission of these statements was harmless. We, therefore, reverse and remand for a new trial.
Prior to trial, appellant filed a motion to suppress statements he made to officers on April 27, 2012. He argued the statements were given as a result of continued and persistent questioning and threats after he invoked his right to remain silent and his right to counsel.
A transcript of the interview appears in the record. The interview was conducted in Adele, Georgia, where appellant lived, regarding a shooting that took place during a drug deal in Jacksonville, Florida. Detectives Mirandized appellant and then confronted him with evidence of his guilt, including that the co-defendant Dexter Bridges had identified appellant as the shooter. Appellant initially denied being in Jacksonville and denied involvement in the drug deal or shooting. Then the following exchange took place:1
(Emphasis added).
Appellant then admitted to giving the co-defendant his phone. He stated the co-defendant said he needed to drive to Jacksonville to get his clothes because he was moving back to Georgia, and he asked to borrow appellant's phone. The detective asked appellant if he was in Jacksonville on the day of the shooting, and he responded, “No.” The detective stated, “Come on man, we are done.” Appellant responded, “Can you listen to me.” Detectives then presented appellant with evidence of his guilt, including a statement from the co-defendant that appellant was the shooter. Appellant denied being the shooter or knowing anything about the incident. The detectives stated, Appellant responded, “Can you come talk to me?” Appellant continued denying knowledge of the incident. The detective stated, The detective left. Appellant immediately began banging, and the detective returned. Appellant continued denying culpability. The detective stated he was “done” with the interview, explaining, (Emphasis added). Appellant responded,
Appellant agreed to speak without a lawyer, but asked that his mother be brought in. The detective agreed, but only if appellant admitted to involvement in the incident. Appellant continued to deny involvement. The detective stated, ” (Emphasis added). The detective left. Appellant knocked on the door. The detective returned. Appellant renewed his request for his mother and stated he did not want a lawyer. Then the detective asked appellant if he saw a murder. Appellant did not answer, but again asked for his mother. The detective then handcuffed appellant and stated he was “under arrest. ” The detective left. Appellant knocked and yelled through the door repeatedly, “I will talk.” The second detective, who was still in the room continued questioning appellant, who continued denying involvement. The second detective reminded appellant “you are under arrest” and left. Appellant knocked on the door three separate times, and a few minutes later the detectives returned. Appellant continued to request his mother. He also asked why he was under arrest. They did not answer him, but instead removed his handcuffs.
Appellant admitted to going to Jacksonville in his girlfriend's daughter's car, with the co-defendant, in order to get the co-defendant's clothes from a motel where he had been staying. He stated the co-defendant left him at the motel and came back a few minutes later, and they returned to Georgia. The detectives told appellant he was not telling the truth and they left. Appellant began vomiting. He knocked on the door. The detectives returned less than a minute later and asked, ” (Emphasis added). Appellant renewed his request for his mother. He began throwing up again. His mother was then brought in. After additional questioning, appellant admitted to being in the car when the co-defendant got out and shot the victim. He denied knowing in advance what the co-defendant intended to do, but he admitted knowing the co-defendant had conflict with someone and wanted to send a “message.”
The trial court entered an order granting the motion to suppress in part. The court found that when appellant repeatedly stated, “I am through with this interview,” he “invoked his right to remain silent with sufficient clarity such that questioning by the officers should have ceased.” Moreover, the court found that the detective made a threat when he responded, The court found that statement “may reasonably be construed as a threat” and thus “any subsequent statement was not freely and voluntarily made.”
However, the court noted that soon thereafter, the detective stated, (Emphasis added). The court reasoned after the detective told appellant he was under arrest, the possibility of arrest could no longer be a threat used to coerce a response to the questioning. The court also noted that the detective then attempted to cease questioning and told appellant to knock on the door if he wanted to talk, and appellant responded that “I am...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nichols v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.
...clarity" for "any reasonable law enforcement officer" to know that the arrestee "desire[s] to terminate the interview"); Scott v. State, 151 So.3d 567, 578 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014) (same). But both Shorter and Scott were decided after Nichols' direct appeal was denied. Reasonably effectiv......