Tennell v. State
| Decision Date | 10 August 1977 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 76-37 and 76-683,s. 76-37 and 76-683 |
| Citation | 348 So.2d 937 |
| Parties | Anthony I. TENNELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
B. Robert Ohle, McDermott & Ohle, St. Petersburg, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Mary Jo M. Gallay, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Appellant, a juvenile in these consolidated appeals, seeks review of an order transferring him to the adult criminal division of the circuit court and an order denying his motion to suppress his confession.
At the time the appellant gave his confession he was fourteen years of age. The record establishes that he was of below average intelligence; had the reading ability equivalent to that of a child entering the first grade; had difficulty understanding normal speech; and for that reason anyone speaking to him had to speak slowly, repeat himself often, and use simple words for the appellant to understand.
During the interrogation only the officer and appellant were present. The minor's parents were not notified. 1 The interrogating officer completed the Miranda waiver form himself after advising the appellant of his rights and satisfying himself that the appellant understood them. After appellant signed the waiver, while under interrogation, he made a statement which is the subject matter of this appeal.
The law as to the admissibility of juveniles' confessions is aptly set forth in T. B. v. State, 306 So.2d 183 (Fla.2d DCA 1975), wherein it is stated on page 185 A confession is not involuntary merely because the person making it is a juvenile. In determining the admissibility of a juvenile's statement the "totality of circumstances" under which it was made must be examined. Gallegos v. Colorado, 1962, 370 U.S. 49, 82 S.Ct. 1209, 8 L.Ed.2d 325, 87 A.L.R.2d 614; Am.Jur.2d, Evidence, § 574.
A history of the problem of juvenile confessions is set out in People v. Lara, 1967, 67 Cal.2d 365, 62 Cal.Rptr. 586, 432 P.2d 202, cert. den., 1968, 392 U.S. 945, 88 S.Ct. 2303, 20 L.Ed.2d 1407. Lara sets out the general rule:
". . . (A) minor has the capacity to make a voluntary confession, even of capital offenses, without the presence or consent of counsel or other responsible adult, and the admissibility of such a confession depends not on his age alone but on a combination of that factor with such other circumstances as his intelligence, education, experience, and ability to comprehend the meaning and effect of his statement. . . ." 62 Cal.Rptr. at 599, 432 P.2d at 215.
To these considerations must be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jennifer J. v. State, 94-2735
...had limited intelligence, was assigned to special education classes, and only obtained a third-grade reading level); Tennell v. State, 348 So.2d 937 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1977) (holding that fourteen-year-old defendant failed to knowingly and intelligently waive rights where defendant had below ......
-
JG v. State
...merely because the person making it is a juvenile." T.B. v. State, 306 So.2d 183, 185 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Tennell v. State, 348 So.2d 937, 938 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). "The erroneous admission of statements obtained in violation of Miranda rights is subject to harmless error analysis." Caso v. S......
-
W.M. v. State
...of any rights cards. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The test as to the admissibility of a juvenile's confession is set out in Tennell v. State, 348 So.2d 937, 938 (Fla.2d DCA 1977) and T.B. v. State, 306 So.2d 183, 185 (Fla.2d DCA In determining the admissibility of a juvenile's statement, the "totalit......
-
Kennedy v. State
...(Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (quoting Arnold v. State, 265 So.2d 64 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972), cert. denied, 272 So.2d 817 (Fla.1973)); Tennell v. State, 348 So.2d 937 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). Although the State need only establish the voluntariness of a Miranda waiver by the preponderance of the evidence, W.M.......