State v. Gilles, 96-2551
| Decision Date | 29 October 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-2551,96-2551 |
| Citation | 701 So.2d 375 |
| Parties | 22 Fla. L. Weekly D2500 The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Marie GILLES, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Fredericka Sands, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.
Honey Hartman, Hollywood, for appellee.
Before NESBITT, COPE and FLETCHER, JJ.
The State appeals an order suppressing statements made to police by defendant Marie Gilles. Because our review of the record reveals that her pre-Miranda warning statements were not made while in custody, and her post-Miranda warning statement was voluntarily given, we reverse.
At 11:30 one evening in 1995 1 uniformed police were summoned to a murder scene at the home of the defendant and her family. By initial appearances the defendant and her husband had been the victims of a home invasion robbery during which the husband was killed.
The lead detective arrived on the scene at 1:29 A.M. Shortly thereafter, the detective had the defendant and her two children (ages fourteen and sixteen) driven to the North Miami police station because the Gilles home had been roped off for crime scene processing and the family could not be allowed back in. The detective also wished to obtain statements about the occurrence.
At the North Miami police station the defendant was seated in the lobby together with her son and daughter. The North Miami police station lobby is not large and contains a row of padded chairs along a wall, a water fountain, restrooms, and a telephone. The front door to the police station (which was unlocked) was approximately four feet from where the defendant and her children were situated. The defendant was free to leave at any time, for food, for a change in clothing, in order to sleep elsewhere, or for no reason but her desire to do so.
At about 4:15 A.M., the defendant was interviewed by the lead detective in a small room in the detective bureau which is located by the lobby. At that time the defendant was not a suspect of any kind but was viewed as a witness and victim. Because of this, she was not "read her rights" at that time and remained free to leave. This first interview lasted for a short time, up to one hour, after which the defendant returned to the lobby where her teenage son and daughter were waiting.
At 7:00 A.M., the detective interviewed several other persons who placed the defendant at the home of the suspected shooter prior to the murder of her husband. This gave the detective some concern as to the true status of the defendant. As a consequence, shortly after the conclusion of the other interviews (at 10:45 A.M.) the detective re-interviewed the defendant, who had been waiting in the lobby although she was, and had remained, free to leave.
Early in this second interview the defendant confirmed to the detective that she had been at the house of the co-defendant-to-be and had "summoned him to come over there to do something." At this time the detective had the defendant read her rights out loud in the presence of another detective and himself. The defendant was then pre-interviewed, then her statement was tape recorded.
It would appear that a legally unremarkable series of events had taken place, i.e., a person not in custody was interviewed by the police, voluntarily gave a statement, was re-interviewed, warned as to her rights, and voluntarily gave a further (taped) statement. Such a series of events does not call for suppression of the statements. See Caso v. State, 524 So.2d 422 (Fla.1988)(police are required to give Miranda warnings only when the person is in custody), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 870, 109 S.Ct. 178, 102 L.Ed.2d 147 (1988); State v. Polanco, 658 So.2d 1123 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)(a suspect who responded to unwarned yet uncoercive questioning may yet waive his rights and confess after required Miranda warnings.) The trial court, however, concluded that the defendant was in police custody notwithstanding that she was at the police station as an apparent victim and witness to her husband's murder and notwithstanding that she was free to leave the police...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Weiss
...that the defendant was in custody for Miranda purposes. We need not consider the defendant's particular mindset. See State v. Gilles, 701 So.2d 375, 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). However, we may consider her youth and lack of exposure to the criminal justice system. See Ramirez, 739 So.2d 568. In......
-
Menchillo v. State
...was free to leave the scene during her interview with [Officer] Longson is not dispositive of this case." (quoting State v. Gilles , 701 So. 2d 375, 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) )). And "[i]n the absence of any indicia of coercion or intimidating circumstances, police questioning about criminal c......
-
State v. Scott, 5D00-2481.
...of apprehensions or mental state, unless visited upon her or him by the interrogator, does not require suppression." State v. Gilles, 701 So.2d 375, 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). The Gilles court cited to the supreme court's decision in Johnson v. State, 696 So.2d 326 (Fla. 1997), cert. den., 522......
-
State v. Rincon
...not necessarily turn the questioning of an individual into a custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings. In State v. Gilles, 701 So.2d 375 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), this Court reversed the trial court's suppression of Gilles' statements made at a police station prior to being advised of h......