State v. Galasso
Decision Date | 20 December 1968 |
Docket Number | No. 37220,37220 |
Citation | 217 So.2d 326 |
Parties | STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Robert J. GALASSO, Respondent. STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Joseph A. MANCUSI, Respondent. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Charles W. Musgrove, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
C. Wendell Harris, Vero Beach, for respondents.
The respondents, Robert J. Galasso and Joseph A. Mancusi, were tried jointly on two court informations charging them with (1) the unlawful possession of marijuana and (2) the cultivation of marijuana. After a jury trial, verdicts were returned against each of the respondents on both courts charged. On appeal the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded both respondents for a new trial. See Galasso v. State, 207 So.2d 45 (Fla.4th DCA 1968).
The State thereafter filed its petition for writ of certiorari to this Court alleging direct conflict between the District Court's decision and the Supreme Court's prior decisions on the same point of law in State v. Hines, 195 So.2d 550 (Fla.1967) and Flowers v. State, 59 Fla. 16, 52 So. 11 (1910).
An understanding of the facts and issues herein can best be gleaned from the District Court's opinion.
* * *
* * *
Defendant Mancusi also testified that he was not aware of the envelope containing marijuana which was found on the dresser in the defendants' room. The District Court's opinion continues:
apartment when the envelope containing the suspected marijuana was found and given to Mr. Powers:
'Q. What, if anything, did the Defendant Mancusi say to you concerning this packet sitting on the dresser?
'* * *
'A. Mr. Powers examined the packet there that had the marijuana in it and he turned around and he made a statement to the effect, he says 'Look here, boys,'--
'(Objection by defendants.)
'BY THE COURT:
'Q. Were the defendants there at the time?
'A. Yes, sir.
'THE COURT: The objection is overruled.
'A. He said, 'Look here, boys, Look what I found; whose is this?' And Galasso, they were both sitting on the bed there and Galasso said, And that is all that was said. (Emphasis added.)
* * *
* * *
The District Court upon the above facts held:
In Footnote 1 of its opinion the District Court stated that it did not believe its holding was inconsistent with our prior decision in State v. Hines, 195 So.2d 550 (Fla.1967), because that case commenced prior to the effective date of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 10 A.L.R.3d 974. Were it not for this statement in the footnote, there would be little doubt that State v. Hines, supra, is in direct conflict with the District Court's decision herein. Although this footnote distinguishes the two decisions for the purposes of the District Court's opinion, it does not foreclose our taking jurisdiction of this cause, because on its face the decision of the District Court of Appeal is clearly and admittedly in direct conflict on the same point of law with the decisions of this Court in State v. Hines. For additional conflict see also Jones v. State, 200 So.2d 574 (Fla.3rd DCA 1967).
We are again compelled to treat with another facet of the collateral issues raised by the now famous Miranda cases. The pivotal issue at hand is whether or not 'Miranda-tainted' pre-trial statements are nevertheless admissible for the limited purposes of impeachment when defendant voluntarily chooses to testify on the same subject in his own behalf. It is upon this very limited issue that we focus our inquiry.
A brief review of the pertinent decisions in this area will prepare the way for our disposition of this case. Taken in chronological order, we specifically direct attention to the Federal Supreme Court's decision in Walder v. United States, 347 U.S. 62, 74 S.Ct. 354, 98 L.Ed. 503 (1954), the Miranda cases, and subsequent federal cases interpreting Walder in light of Miranda.
In Walder, the defendant had been indicted in 1950 for possession of heroin but the indictment had been dismissed because the evidence of such possession had been obtained by an illegal search and seizure.
The same defendant was indicted again in 1952 for another, distinct offense of possession of heroin. In defense of this second charge, the defendant testified before the jury that he had never had any heroin in his possession. The trial court thereafter allowed the government to introduce the evidence of the defendant's earlier possession for the purpose of impeaching his testimony. The evidence was admitted over the objection that the impeaching evidence had been obtained in violation of the fourth amendment. The Supreme Court in sustaining the trial court's ruling wrote:
* * *
* * *
347 U.S. at 65, 74 S.Ct. at 356.
For discussion of the various lower federal court interpretations of Walder, see the majority opinion in Groshart v. United States, 392 F.2d 172 (9th Cir. 1968).
In 1966 the U.S Supreme Court published its far reaching Miranda decisions. It should be remembered that the precise question herein concerning the admission of tainted pre-trial statements for the purpose of impeaching the testimony of an accused who voluntarily takes the stand, was not before the Court in Miranda. Nevertheless in Miranda the Supreme Court did say:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. May
...727, cert. den. (1967) 386 U.S. 1024, 87 S.Ct. 1382, 18 L.Ed.2d 464; Velarde v. People (1970) 171 Colo. 261, 466 P.2d 919; State v. Galasso (Fla.1968) 217 So.2d 326; People v. Luna (1967) 37 Ill.2d 299, 226 N.E.2d 586; Franklin v. State (1969) 6 Md.App. 572, 252 A.2d 487; People v. Wilson (......
-
People v. May
...727, cert. den. (1967) 386 U.S. 1024, 87 S.Ct. 1382, 18 L.Ed.2d 464; Velarde v. People (1970) 171 Colo. 261, 466 P.2d 919; State v. Galasso (Fla.1968) 217 So.2d 326; People v. Luna (1967) 37 Ill.2d 299, 226 N.E.2d 586; Franklin v. State (1969) 6 Md.App. 572, 252 A.2d 487; People v. Wilson (......
-
Harris v. New York
...cert. denied, 386 U.S. 1024, 87 S.Ct. 1382, 18 L.Ed.2d 464 (1967); Velarde v. People, 171 Colo. 261, 466 P.2d 919 (1970); State v. Galasso, 217 So.2d 326 (Fla.1968); People v. Luna, 37 Ill.2d 299, 226 N.E.2d 586 (1967); Franklin v. State, 6 Md.App. 572, 252 A.2d 487 (1969); People v. Wilson......
-
People v. Andrews, Cr. 5488
...399 F.2d 586; United States v. Mullings (2d Cir. 1966) 364 F.2d 173; Helton v. United States (5th Cir. 1955) 221 F.2d 338; State v. Galasso (Fla.1968) 217 So.2d 326; Jones v. State (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1967) 200 So.2d 574; State v. Stuart (Mo.1970) 456 S.W.2d 19; State v. Vainikos (Mo.1963) 366......