Taylor v. State, T--480
Decision Date | 26 March 1974 |
Docket Number | No. T--480,T--480 |
Citation | 292 So.2d 375 |
Parties | Robert Jerome TAYLOR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, and David J. Busch, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and George R. Georgieff, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant was convicted of robbery and appeals from his judgment and sentence. He first contends that the court erred in allowing in evidence an alleged inculpatory statement made by him which was first made known to the defense thirty minutes before the trial. Two police officers testified that they overheard the statement from the hall and office adjoining the hall outside the closed door of the line-up room (which is used for a conference room) where appellant was placed for a visit with his wife. The officers testified they could not help overhearing appellant say in a loud voice, 'That mother _ _ couldn't identify me; I had a stocking over my face' (obscene word omitted). Appellant had previously been advised of his constitutional rights.
The state attorney advised the defense attorney approximately thirty minutes before trial that the officers would testify to the statement. It appears that the state attorney had just then learned of the statement himself. On April 16, 1973, appellant had made a demand for discovery pursuant to Rule 3.220(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 33 F.S.A. that the state disclose to him 'any written or recorded statement and the substance of any oral statements made by the accused and known to the prosecutor. . . .' To which the State on May 4, 1973, replied: 'None known to the State.' At the outset of the trial, (May 23, 1973) before any testimony was taken, appellant objected to the statement on the ground that the state had violated its duty to furnish him any statements made by appellant. Appellant relies upon State v. Coney, Fla.App., 272 So.2d 550. We stated in Coney as follows:
Appellant did not depose the officers who overheard the statement. Appellant's counsel did confer with them and there is conflict between the officers and appellant's counsel as to whether or not the conference was broken off by appellant's counsel before they could get...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Castaneda
...1980) 262 S.E.2d 305, 306; State v. Festo (Conn 1980) 435 A.2d 38, 44; State v. Starks (Ariz. 1979) 596 P.2d 366, 369; Taylor v. State (Fla. App. 1974) 292 So.2d 375, 376.) ...
-
McCray v. State, 92-3175
...not limited to statements state intends to use at trial); Hutchinson v. State, 397 So.2d 1001, 1002 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Taylor v. State, 292 So.2d 375 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 298 So.2d 415 (Fla.1974) (statements in constructive possession of prosecutor even if he is not personally aw......
-
Stradtman v. State
...v. Coney, Fla.1973, 294 So.2d 82; Adkins v. Smith, Fla.1968, 205 So.2d 530; Cannon v. State, Fla.App.1975, 317 So.2d 459; Taylor v. State, Fla.App.1974, 292 So.2d 375; and Rule 3.220 Rules of Criminal Procedure, 33 After a consideration of the record, all points in the briefs, and arguments......
-
Trolinger v. State
...made here adequately complied with the law as stated in Richardson. Spradley v. State, Fla.1974, 293 So.2d 697. See Taylor v. State, Fla.App.1st, 1974, 292 So.2d 375. Trolinger next contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his confession without a specific findi......