ERNEST JAMES FINLEY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Finley appeals his conviction for first-degree murder and armed robbery, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress confessions and admissions. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding the statements were voluntarily made and properly admitted into evidence.
The trial court did not err in denying the motions to suppress. There is sufficient and substantial competent evidence in the record establishing the voluntary character of the statements made after Finley was advised of his constitutional rights. The trial court's determination of voluntariness must be gleaned from all that was said and done at the suppression hearing, not from specific magic words.
[1] A trial court's determination that a confession or admission was voluntarily made need not be stated in magic words, but may be gleaned from the totality of the evidence…
[2] The State bears the burden of proving the voluntariness of a confession by a preponderance of the evidence.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The State's burden to prove that a confession was voluntary is by a preponderance of the evidence — not beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Establishes the correct legal standard for determining voluntariness of confessions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFinley was convicted by jury of first-degree murder and armed robbery. He made statements and confessions admitting his participation with other perso…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Burden Of Proof For Confession Voluntariness cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from judgments of conviction in the Circuit Court of Okaloosa County of murder in the first degree and armed robbery, and sentences thereon.
The only point on appeal is the alleged error of the trial court in refusing to suppress certain statements made by appellant which were by their nature confessions or admissions involving appellant’s participation with other persons in the two crimes for which he was convicted by the jury. The basis of the motions to suppress is that appellant claimed that the confessions and admissions were not voluntarily made by him and that the trial court failed to determine that they were so made.
We note at the outset that the State’s burden to prove that a confession was voluntary is by a preponderance of the evidence — not beyond a reasonable doubt. Wilson v. State, 304 So. 2d 119 (Fla.1974).
We have carefully reviewed the record herein and have heard oral argument and considered the briefs of counsel, and conclude that the trial court did not err in denying the motions to suppress the statements. There is in the record sufficient and substantial competent evidence which establishes the voluntary character of the statements sought to be suppressed which were made after appellant had been advised of his constitutional rights. We therefore cannot substitute a contrary judgment for that of the trial judge who heard the witnesses and who was in a much better position to judge of their credibility than we should do from the reading of the cold record herein. Shuler v. State, 132 So. 2d 7 (Fla.1961); Ebert v. State, 140 So. 2d 63 (Fla.App. 2, 1962); Barker v. State, 271 So. 2d 790 (Fla.App. 3, 1973).
As to the trial court’s determination in so many words that he found the statements admitted into evidence as having been voluntarily made by appellant, we conclude that the totality of the evidence adduced and the statements made by the trial court during the hearing on the motions and at the conclusion thereof show clearly that he did rule that they were voluntarily made. We hold that there is no magic in the words “I declare that the confessions (or admissions) were voluntarily made”, but the trial court’s determination of the question of voluntariness must be gleaned from all that was said and done at the hearing. Particularly, is this true when there is, as here, a complete absence of any evidence of coercion as to the statements admitted into evidence. Bunch v. State, 303 So. 2d 705 (Fla.App.1974); Wilson v. State, 304 So. 2d 119 (Fla.1974); Sims v. Georgia, 385 U.S. 538, 87 S.Ct. 639, 17 L.Ed.2d 593 (1967).
Affirmed.
McCORD and SHIVERS, JJ., and MASON, ERNEST E., Associate Judge (Retired), concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harley v. State, 407 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…and concluded that the statement was freely and voluntarily given. We would not disturb that finding as the record discloses that a preponderance of the evidence supports that conclusion. McDole v. State, 283 So. 2d 553 (Fla.1973); Finley v. State, 378 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. BOOTH, LARRY G. SMITH and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.…
-
Dante Dino, Jr. v. State, 405 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…ychotic at the time he made the statement. Although the court failed to make a specific finding that the statement was made voluntarily, the court’s ruling encompassed that finding. See Peterson v. State, 382 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 1980); Finley v. State, 378 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). We find no error on the question of voluntariness. We find no violation of constitutional rights in the officer’s conducting an interview with defendant in the absence of his attorney under the circumstances presented. The atto…
-
King v. State, 380 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Dykman v. State, 294 So. 2d 633, 637-638 (Fla.1973); Finley v. State, 378 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Barnason v. State, 371 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Green v. State, 363 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sims v. Georgia, 385 U.S. 538 (U.S. 1967)
- Wilson v. State, 304 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 1974)
- Ebert v. State, 140 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Bunch v. State, 303 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Shuler v. State, 132 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 1961)
- Barker v. State, 271 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)