State v. Williams, 80-249
| Decision Date | 27 June 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-249,80-249 |
| Citation | 386 So.2d 27 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Barbara Ann WILLIAMS, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Michael J. Kotler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellant.
Jack O. Johnson, Public Defender, and Michael E. Raiden, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellee.
The state challenges the trial court's order granting the defendant's pretrial motion to suppress her confession. We have jurisdiction. § 924.071(1), Fla.Stat. (1979). We agree that the confession was improperly suppressed and reverse.
The state charged Barbara Ann Williams with grand theft, and prior to trial she moved to suppress a confession she had given to the police. At the suppression hearing Williams and Officers Hunley and Street of the Lakeland Police Department testified. The officers stated that shortly before midnight they were called to a local lounge to investigate a theft of money from a patron. Upon completion of their investigation, they arrested Williams. The officers realized she had been drinking but they testified that she was not intoxicated. They each stated that they gave her Miranda warnings at the lounge and that she denied any involvement in the theft. They took her to the nearby police station but did not readminister the Miranda warnings. At no time did they have her sign an acknowledgment of the warnings or a waiver of her constitutional rights. She again denied any involvement in the theft. At the station she became upset and asked the officers if they would forget the incident if she returned the money. The officers testified that they told her that they could not do this, and that she started crying and spontaneously told them that she had taken the money. They also stated that at no time did they make any threats or promises.
Williams testified that after having a number of drinks, she had gone to the lounge. There she had several more. She described herself as being intoxicated and said she could not remember whether the officers had given her Miranda warnings. She stated that during the questioning at the police station, the officers yelled at her causing her to become upset.
In granting the motion to suppress, the court noted that the police had not attempted to have Williams sign an acknowledgment of the warnings of a waiver of her constitutional rights, and that they had not attempted to tape her confession, although they had the facilities to do so. The court further observed, "Everything else I agree with you (the state); it appears that everything is probably spontaneous and so forth . . . ." Finally, in explaining the basis of its ruling, the court noted:
If they continue to question without restating the rights, then I believe there's, you cannot do that without restating the rights.
(T)hey didn't have the going, the tape recording or whatever, or they didn't get her to sign something and, also, there's not a period of time. But after she denies it out there (at the lounge) and she's read her rights . . . . But then they take her down to the police station and she's down there for x amount of time, and there's no real good showing as to how long, and then, ultimately, she makes some statements . . . (a)nd I just feel that there's a question as to the voluntariness of it under those circumstances, and there is also a question as to whether or not she should have been read those rights again; and I believe she should have been.
Even though the trial court stated that the police held Williams at the station "for x amount of time," it appears she confessed within a few hours after her arrest. Both the officers and Williams testified that she had been drinking. We note that while intoxication could have rendered the confession involuntary, the trial court did not comment on Williams' state of intoxication. Thus, as we interpret the court's ruling, it held the confession involuntary because the police failed to obtain a written waiver from Williams, failed to readminister Miranda warnings at the police station, and failed to tape-record her confession.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. DeConingh
...304 So.2d 119 (Fla.1974); McDole v. State, 283 So.2d 553 (Fla.1973); State v. Beck, 390 So.2d 748 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); State v. Williams, 386 So.2d 27 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Barnason v. State, 371 So.2d 680 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 381 So.2d 764 (Fla.1980); DeCastro v. State, supra; La......
-
Pressley v. State
...101 Cal.Rptr. 75, (1972) (thirty minutes); Hall v. State, 440 So.2d 689 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (one hour twenty minutes); State v. Williams, 386 So.2d 27 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (a few hours); De Luca v. State, 384 So.2d 212 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 389 So.2d 1108 (Fla.1980) (less than twenty-f......
-
State v. Beck
...desire to alleviate his mental illness and distress, and therefore as entirely voluntary and admissible. See, State v. Williams, 386 So.2d 27 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); State v. Baker, 4 Kan.App.2d 340, 606 P.2d 120 Reversed. 1 Royer v. State, 389 So.2d 1007 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).2 Even if we found, ......
-
State v. DuPont, 93-04221
...We disagree. While the better practice would be to record interviews and confessions, police are not required to do so. State v. Williams, 386 So.2d 27 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). Therefore, the failure of police to record DuPont's statements did not per se violate his due process Accordingly, base......