State v. Wininger, 82-1245
Decision Date | 15 March 1983 |
Docket Number | No. 82-1245,82-1245 |
Citation | 427 So.2d 1114 |
Parties | The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Walter Thomas WININGER, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Paul Mendelson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Mark King Leban, Miami, Stephen J. Goldstein, North Miami, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and DANIEL S. PEARSON and JORGENSON, JJ.
Wininger, at the request of police officers investigating a homicide, went to the police station for questioning. He was given Miranda warnings and to a certain point in the interrogation freely answered questions. That certain point arrived when Wininger was informed he was a suspect. At that moment he stated to the interrogating officer: The officer responded, The questioning immediately continued, and the defendant answered the questions.
The trial court found that the defendant's request to go home was the functional equivalent of an "announced desire to cease the interrogation," which was not, when the police continued the interrogation, scrupulously honored, as it had to be. See Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 96 S.Ct. 321, 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (1975). It suppressed all statements made by the defendant following the defendant's request to go home. The State has appealed the trial court's suppression order. We affirm.
Our starting and, as will be seen, ending point is Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 473-74, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1627-28, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 723, 10 A.L.R.3d 974 (1966), in which the Court stated:
(emphasis supplied).
Because it is clear that the questioning of the defendant did not immediately cease, see Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 96 S.Ct. 321, 46 L.Ed.2d 313 ( ), the sole issue before us is whether the defendant's words, indicated in any manner that the defendant wished to invoke his right to remain silent.
We agree with the trial court's finding that the defendant's request manifested a desire to end the interrogation. The request, made on the heels of being informed for the first time that he was a suspect, was, at the least, an indication in some manner that the defendant did not want to answer further questions. See Thompson v. State, 386 So.2d 264, 267 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). It thus significantly differs from a statement which merely evinces a desire to have someone present during the interrogation, see, e.g., Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 99 S.Ct. 2560, 61 L.Ed.2d 197 (1979) ( ); United States ex rel. Riley v. Franzen, 653 F.2d 1153 (7th Cir.1981) ( ), or even one which evinces a desire to have an attorney present during the interrogation. See, e.g., Jennings v. State, 413 So.2d 24 (Fla.1982) ( ); Nash v. Estelle, 597 F.2d 513 (5th Cir.1979) (en banc) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Gorman
...Johnson v. State (Ind.Ct.App.1985), 484 N.E.2d 49; Commonwealth v. Craig (1985), 345 Pa.Super. 542, 498 A.2d 957; State v. Wininger (Fla.Dist.Ct. App.1983), 427 So.2d 1114; State v. Pollock (1974), 22 N.C.App. 214, 206 S.E.2d 382; State v. Vining (1970), 2 Wash.App. 802, 472 P.2d 564.) This......
-
State v. DuPont, 93-04221
...to remain silent, police may only question a suspect to clarify the invocation of the right to remain silent. In State v. Wininger, 427 So.2d 1114 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), the defendant volunteered to answer questions at the police station. When the police told Wininger that he was a suspect, he......
-
Stokes v. State, 88-96
...presented by the request, which was uttered in their presence and in response to their interrogation. 1 1 As held in State v. Wininger, 427 So.2d 1114 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), where the statement from defendant in the course of interrogation was "I want to go home," we conclude ... the sole issu......
- Dean v. State, 82-1135