Shelly v. State
| Docket Number | SC16-1195 |
| Decision Date | 13 December 2018 |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
7 cases
-
People v. Leyba
...being charged with and then got up to leave, and the suspect immediately said, "I'd like to say something else." See also Shelly v. State , 262 So. 3d 1, 15 (Fla. 2018) (immediately after invoking his right to counsel, the defendant continued and reinitiated the conversation by asking the d......
-
Penna v. State
...given the defendant his Miranda rights again, violated his Miranda rights, as the Florida Supreme Court held in Shelly v. State , 262 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 2018).The state filed a written response arguing that all of the defendant's statements to the deputy were spontaneous and not the result of c......
-
N.J.O. v. State
...or her rights, it is improper for officers to attempt to coax or cajole a suspect into waiving those rights. See, e.g., Shelly v. State, 262 So. 3d 1, 17 (Fla. 2018) (holding that it was a violation of the suspect's Miranda rights for the police to attempt to coax the suspect into permittin......
-
Kramer v. State, No. 4D18-88
...after her invocation of rights where the interrogation did not cease upon the suspect's invocation of rights. Shelly v. State , 262 So. 3d 1, 17 (Fla. 2018)."[T]he admissibility of statements obtained after the person in custody has decided to remain silent depends under Miranda on whether ......
Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
-
Defendant's statements
...may be properly admitted. The accused be specifically given his or her Miranda rights after an alleged re-initiation. Shelley v. State, 262 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 2018) Defendant’s mention of the word “lawyer”, while on video tape in an interrogation room but alone, is an equivocal invocation of th......