State v. Mullin, 73--1054
| Decision Date | 27 November 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 73--1054,73--1054 |
| Citation | 286 So.2d 36 |
| Parties | The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Michael MULLIN, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Richard E. Gerstein, State's Atty., and Joseph Durant, Asst. State's Atty., for appellant.
Gerald Kogan, Miami, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, C.J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, JJ.
In this criminal proceeding the court granted a motion of the defendant and suppressed his confession. The state appealed.
On the motion to suppress it was disclosed that at the time the confession was obtained an officer informed the defendant that he could not promise him anything but would tell the court and the jury that he co-operated in the case. The trial court found the confession 'arose out of that inducement,' and that such inducement 'carries with it an implied threat that the defendant would be penalized if he did not co-operate.' We are unable to agree with the trial court that the statement made by the officer to the defendant represented such an inducement or threat to the defendant as to vitiate his otherwise voluntary confession.
The officer expressly informed the defendant he could not promise him anything. The further statement by the officer that he would let the judge and the jury know the defendant had co-operated in the case did not amount to a promise of leniency, but only that his co-operation would be made known. All the defendant reasonably could assume therefrom was that the court or jury being so advised might exercise leniency in his case if they so chose.
In Paramore v. State, Fla.1969, 229 So.2d 855, 858, the Supreme Court said:
* * *'
On the authority of that statement of the applicable law in Paramore v. State, supra, and the decisions cited therein, we hold the motion to suppress should have been denied, and that it was error to order...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Carigon
...supra, 416 Mich. at pp. 360-361, fn. 3, 331 N.W.2d 406. See also State v. Williams, 358 So.2d 1094 (Fla.App., 1978); State v. Mullin, 286 So.2d 36 (Fla.App., 1973). Somewhat similar facts were at issue in People v. Ewing (On Remand), 102 Mich.App. 81, 300 N.W.2d 742 "Defendant also argues t......
-
Bova v. State
...Accord, United States v. Hart, 619 F.2d 325 (4th Cir. 1980); State v. Williams, 358 So.2d 1094 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); State v. Mullin, 286 So.2d 36 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). II Defendant's next point is much more troublesome; he alleges that his right to assistance of counsel was impermissibly impa......
-
Hillard v. State
...302 N.E.2d 609 (Ill., 1973); Wallace v. State, Supra, 275 So.2d 634; State v. Williams, 358 So.2d 1094 (Fla.App., 1978); State v. Mullin, 286 So.2d 36 (Fla.App., 1973). In United States v. Ferrara, 377 F.2d 16 (2nd Cir., 1967), Cert. denied 389 U.S. 908, 88 S.Ct. 225, 19 L.Ed.2d 225, the co......
-
Pedrera v. State, 79-1201
...(Fla. 4th DCA 1970); Yost v. State, 243 So.2d 469 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Mendez v. State, 280 So.2d 525 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); State v. Mullin, 286 So.2d 36 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Morgan v. State, 303 So.2d 393 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Mathis v. State, 348 So.2d 1221 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); State v. Williams......