State v. Paschal, II-414
| Decision Date | 20 April 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. II-414,II-414 |
| Citation | 358 So.2d 73 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Eugene PASCHAL, Jr., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and A. S. Johnston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Michael J. Minerva, Public Defender, for appellee.
State seeks review of the trial court's order suppressing certain inculpatory statements made by appellee/defendant. Testimony revealed that upon arrival at the scene of an alleged attempted murder, a police officer questioned the victim, defendant's wife, regarding the incident. The victim implicated defendant in the offense and indicated that he was in their house next door. The officer entered the house and asked defendant what had happened. After defendant made several inculpatory statements, he was placed under arrest and read the Miranda warnings, which he acknowledged he understood. Defendant then made other inculpatory statements. At the police station, defendant made further statements in a recorded statement. Trial court ordered all statements made by defendant suppressed. We reverse in part and affirm in part.
The initial statements made by defendant were not the product of custodial interrogation and thus were not inadmissible due to the failure to advise defendant of his Miranda rights. Although defendant had been implicated in the crime, when the officer entered the house to ask what happened, defendant had not been placed under arrest nor had his freedom of action been deprived in any significant way. The officer's question was akin to the investigatory on-the-scene questioning referred to in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Cf. State v. Barnes, 245 So.2d 108 (Fla. 3 DCA 1971); Melero v. State, 306 So.2d 603 (Fla. 3 DCA 1975); United States v. Montos, 421 F.2d 215 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1022, 90 S.Ct. 1262, 25 L.Ed.2d 532 (1970). The defendant's second statements were properly admissible since they were made after Miranda warnings had been given and a waiver of those rights had been shown.
We agree that the taped statements were inadmissible under the principles enunciated in State v. Prosser, 235 So.2d 740 (Fla. 1 DCA 1970), and Jones v. State, 346 So.2d 639 (Fla. 2 DCA 1977). That portion of the order suppressing the taped statement is, therefore, AFFIRMED. The order is otherwise REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. DeConingh
...v. United States, 425 U.S. 341, 96 S.Ct. 1612, 48 L.Ed.2d 1 (1976); State v. Fields, 294 N.W.2d 404 (N.D.1980); State v. Paschal, 358 So.2d 73 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Cummings v. State, supra. 2 The fact that Sheriff Roth gave DeConingh the "advice of rights" form to read does not convert an o......
-
T.J. v. State, 83-52
...the juveniles what they were doing. Bautista. See Mathiason; Terry; Miranda; Hardie v. State, 333 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976); State v. Paschal, 358 So.2d 73 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 360 So.2d 1249 When the juveniles told the officer they were selling avocados, and he observed that they had no......
-
State v. Wright, 80-2279
...L.Ed.2d 714 (1977); State v. Clark, 384 So.2d 687 (Fla. 4th DCA), petition for review denied, 392 So.2d 1372 (Fla.1980); State v. Paschal, 358 So.2d 73 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 360 So.2d 1249 (Fla.1978). As soon as he became a suspect, he was advised of his rights. His subsequent state......
-
Bishop v. State., 78-2786
...Tallahassee and Robert L. Bogen, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee. PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED on authority of State v. Paschal, 358 So.2d 73 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), cert. den. 360 So.2d 1249 DOWNEY, HERSEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur. ...