Trolinger v. State
| Decision Date | 25 September 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 73--845,73--845 |
| Parties | Jerry Dwight TROLINGER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James A. Gardner, Public Defender, and Robert T. Benton II, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Richard C. Booth, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
In this appeal from a jdugment and sentence to life imprisonment for second degree murder, Trolinger first contends that the lower court erred in admitting the testimony of a witness whose name had not been furnished to the defense pursuant to Rule 3.220, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 33 F.S.A.
The record shows that the trial court held a hearing outside the presence of the jury and made adequate inquiry into all surrounding circumstances as required by Richardson v. State, Fla.1971, 246 So.2d 771. The court then granted defense counsel permission to talk with the witness and told him that if he needed to talk with other witnesses he could report this to the court. Defense counsel interviewed the witness, but made no request to talk with other witnesses, nor did he request a continuance.
The inquiry 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 finding of voluntariness and without a clear and convincing showing that he had knowingly and intelligently waived his constitutional rights.
Unlike the situation in McDole v. State, Fla.1973, 283 So.2d 553; Smith v. State, Fla.App.3d, 1974, 288 So.2d 522, and Graham v. State, Fla.App.3d 1974, 292 So.2d 373, where the court merely stated that the motion to suppress the confession was denied, the trial judge in the case sub judice stated that Trolinger's rights were read to him, he was asked if he understood, and he stated that he did. The judge's conclusion that the confession was voluntary, therefore, appears from the record with unmistakable clarity. Cf. McDole, supra; Sims v. Georgia, 385 U.S. 538, 87 S.Ct. 639, 17 L.Ed.2d 593.
We have carefully examined the record and find that the trial court's conclusion that Trolinger's statements were voluntarily made is amply supported by the record.
Trolinger's third point is without...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peterson v. State
...supra, do not require that the determination of voluntariness be worded in any specific fashion. This court held in Trolinger v. State, 300 So.2d 310 (Fla.2d DCA 1974), Cert. denied, 310 So.2d 740 (Fla.1975), that as long as it is unmistakably clear from the record that the trial judge's ru......
-
Dep't Of Agriculture & Consumer Serv. v. Bogorff
...Griffis v. Hill, 230 So.2d 143 (Fla.1969); Gulf Life Ins. Co. v. Shelton, 155 Fla. 586, 21 So.2d 39 (1945). 6. Trolinger v. State, 300 So.2d 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 310 So.2d 740 (Fla.1975). Orlando Sports Stadium Inc. v. State ex rel. Powell, 262 So.2d 881, 884 (Fla.1972). 8.......
-
Herman v. State
...was not conclusive or binding on the jury which was free to determine credibility and weight to be ascribed. See Trolinger v. State, 300 So.2d 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 310 So.2d 740 (Fla.1975). Under those circumstances, the jury would be entitled to consider the shotgun and gi......
-
Nettles v. State
...testimony is not binding on the trier of facts. South Venice Corp. v. Caspersen, 229 So.2d 652 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1969); Trolinger v. State, 300 So.2d 310 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1974); State v. Ward, 374 So.2d 1128 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). The court has discretion to accept or reject the opinion of an expert......