State v. Chorpenning
| Decision Date | 01 May 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 72--191,72--191 |
| Citation | 294 So.2d 54 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. James Leroy CHORPENNING, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Baya Harrison, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellant.
Robert E. Jagger, Public Defender, Clearwater, and Karl B. Grube, Asst. Public Defender, Clearwater, for appellee.
This is an interlocutory appeal by the state from an order suppressing two extrajudicial statements of the defendant in which he confessed to killing Mrs. Steinle.
The record contains 1194 pages and consists primarily of testimony taken at two suppression hearings.
The following facts are essentially undisputed. On December 6, 1971, at approximately 4:00 P.M., the defendant voluntarily accompanied Lieutenant Burger and chief Nixon of the Dade City Police Department to the police station for questioning about an assault with intent to commit rape upon Mrs. Acuff. Defendant executed a written waiver of attorney form before the interrogation. Questioning continued from approximately 4:30 P.M. until 7:00 P.M., but no incriminating statements were elicited. When Burger and Nixon left to attend a night traffic court session, the defendant was placed in a detention cell (whether voluntarily or not is disputed) where he remained until sometime after 9:00 P.M.
When the officers returned, the questioning continued in Chief Nixon's office. After a short period, defendant admitted complicity in the assault in general terms. Thereupon, the officers and defendant drove to the scene of the crime and specific incriminating details were discussed. Upon return to the station the defendant signed a handwritten statement and was allowed to return home. He was not placed under arrest. The Steinle murder was mentioned in the course of the proceedings, but who mentioned it is a disputed point.
The following evening the officers came to defendant's house at 7:00 P.M. and asked him to accompany them. He did so voluntarily, and the trio went to the police station where defendant was again read his Miranda rights. Questioning concerning the Steinle murder followed. After a short time, the officers asked defendant to show them the route to Mrs. Steinle's house (where the murder took place), but he apparently became lost. At some point during this journey, the officers came to the conclusion that defendant was implicated and decided to 'go get a warrant.' The trio thereupon drove to Judge Seaver's house, but the judge was not home.
The party then returned to the police station where defendant gave an oral confession purportedly recorded verbatim by Betty Nixon (Chief Nixon's wife) in shorthand. Later the same night Judge Henry committed the defendant to custody for the Steinle murder. He waited until the next morning to determine the proper charge in the Acuff case. The defendant was held in jail overnight.
At noon on December 8, Investigator Pittman of the State Attorney's office interrogated defendant regarding both cases, advising him of his rights several times during the proceedings. Defendant gave detailed confessions to both crimes. Toward the end of the interrogation, Pittman advised defendant of the penalty for the murder, and defendant asked to speak to Pittman privately. Lieutenant Burger left the room but Chief Nixon remained. Defendant then denied committing the crimes. At this point the public defender arrived, and the interrogation ceased.
The disputed evidence is voluminous. Defendant testified he was led to confess to crimes he did not commit for several reasons:
(1) When first interrogated he was told that Mrs. Acuff was not seriously injured and would not press charges. Chief Nixon told the defendant that he simply wanted to clear the matter up and that if defendant would confess to the Acuff assault, he would not be arrested and the matter would be dropped. Defendant believed this because he was allowed to go home that night, and he trusted Chief Nixon. He was able to confess because the officers 'told' him the facts to the crime by asking him leading questions. Chief Nixon told him the Steinle murder was an old matter that he just wanted to get cleared up.
(2) Since the chief had allowed him to go home after the first confession, the defendant believed him when he said he would allow him to go home if he also confessed to the murder. Again, defendant was able to confess because the facts of the case were described to him through leading questions by the police officers.
(3) When the party went to Judge Seaver's house, the officers threatened defendant with loss of custody of his foster child. Chief Nixon told the defendant that if he refused to confess, Lieutenant Burger would advise Judge Seaver (before whom adoption proceedings were pending) to stop the adoption. Defendant thereupon said he committed the Steinle murder.
(4) While enroute to the Steinle house on the night of December 7, Chief Nixon raised his hand and defendant thought Nixon was going to strike him for refusing to cooperate. At this point he began to be afraid of Chief Nixon.
(5) The defendant also said that after his murder confession, Nixon told him that he would have to remain in jail overnight and tell his story to an investigator, but...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bova v. State
...for a confession to be admissible, the state has the burden of showing that it was freely and voluntarily given. State v. Chorpenning, 294 So.2d 54 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). It cannot have been obtained by any direct or implied promise, however slight. Shotwell Mfg. Co. v. United States, 371 U.S.......
-
Black v. State
...without violence. As indicated above, appellant was sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender.4 See also, State v. Chorpenning, 294 So.2d 54 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974).5 In The King v. Warickshall, 168 Eng.Rep. 234, L.Leach Cr. Cases 263 (K.B.1783), it was stated: "A free and voluntary confes......
-
State v. Delgado-Armenta
...So.2d 1191 (Fla.1980), but would only be one factor to consider under the totality of the circumstances. Ross, supra, State v. Chorpenning, 294 So.2d 54 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). See also Annot., 8 A.L.R. 4th 16 (1981). As this court recently stated in Myles v. State, 399 So.2d 481, 482 (Fla. 3d ......
-
DeConingh v. State, 61008
...capacity may be considered in determining whether under the totality of circumstances a confession is voluntary, State v. Chorpenning, 294 So.2d 54 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974), the lack of mental capacity is generally considered only as it relates to credibility and not admissibility, see e.g., Palm......