ANTON KEVIN PETERSON, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
The Florida Supreme Court addressed whether a trial judge must explicitly state on the record that a defendant's statement is voluntary before admitting it into evidence. The Court held that while explicit findings are helpful, they are not required if the record clearly demonstrates the judge understood his responsibilities and properly found voluntariness by a preponderance of the evidence.
No. While it is the trial judge's responsibility to find that a statement was voluntary before submitting it to the jury, the judge need not explicitly state conclusionary findings on the record if the record, with unmistakable clarity, demonstrates that he found the statement voluntary by a preponderance of the evidence and in accordance with Miranda. Explicit recitation of findings is helpful but not fatal if the record otherwise clearly shows proper fulfillment of judicial responsibilities.
[1] A trial judge must find a challenged statement or confession to be voluntary before submitting it to the jury.
[2] When a confession's admissibility is challenged due to voluntariness, the record must clearly demonstrate the trial judge's finding of voluntariness by a preponderance of…
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“When the trial judge admits into evidence a statement or confession to which there has been an objection, on review the record must reflect with unmistakable clarity that he found that the statement or confession was, by the preponderance of the evidence, voluntary and made in accordance with Miranda.”
Establishes the standard of review for confession admissibility—the record must clearly show the judge found voluntariness by the preponderance standard.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAnton Kevin Peterson was convicted after the trial judge admitted statements made by Peterson into evidence. Peterson challenged the voluntariness of …
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 By Preponderance Of The Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
McDONALD, Justice.
In a well reasoned opinion the Second District Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment of conviction of Anton Kevin Peterson.1 Determinative of the validity of the conviction was the correctness of the admission into evidence of statements made by the appellant. The Second District Court of Appeal agreed that the statements were properly admitted but, recognizing that there is some conflict in the state, certified the following question:2
WHERE THE VOLUNTARINESS OF A DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT HAS BEEN CHALLENGED AND COERCION HAS BEEN ALLEGED, MUST THE TRIAL JUDGE SPECIFICALLY STATE ON THE RECORD THAT HE FINDS THE STATEMENT TO BE VOLUNTARY BEFORE PERMITTING THE CONFESSION TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE JURY?
Judge Boardman correctly answered the proposed question in the negative in his opinion, which this Court hereby adopts.
When the admission of a confession is an issue because of a factual controversy as to its voluntariness, it is the responsibility of the trial judge to first find that it was voluntary before submitting it to the jury.3 This simply follows the rule that it is the duty of the trial judge to determine the admissibility of all evidence. When the trial judge admits into evidence a statement or confession to which there has been an objection, on review the record must reflect with unmistakable clarity that he found that the statement or confession was, by the preponderance of the evidence, voluntary and made in accordance with Miranda. If an independent review of the record fails to disclose with unmistakable clarity that the trial judge found that the statement was voluntary and in accordance with other constitutional requirements, or if it appears that he imposed upon the state a lesser burden of proof than preponderance of the evidence in weighing the question of voluntariness, it is reversible error. The trial judge can make this task easier by reciting his conclusionary findings, but the failure to do so is not fatal when the record, with unmistakable clarity, demonstrates that he understood his responsibilities and properly fulfilled them.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
ENGLAND, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON, SUNDBERG and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur. . Peterson v. State, 372 So. 2d 1017 (Fla.2d DCA 1979).
. In certifying its question, the second district noted the probable existence of conflict between its decision and Kimble v. State, 372 So. 2d 1014 (Fla.2d DCA 1979); McCloud v. Wainwright, 359 So. 2d 10 (Fla.4th DCA 1978), and Melero v. State, 306 So. 2d 603 (Fla.3d DCA 1975). We have jurisdiction. Art. V., § 3(b)(3), Fla.Const. The district court has cited only three cases which conflict with its holding. If it had chosen to do so, that court could have listed several more. A survey of cases concerning the voluntariness of confessions demonstrates the confusion generated by McDole v. State, 283 So. 2d 553 (Fla.1973), and Wilson v. State, 304 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 1974). See Green v. State, 363 So. 2d 188 (Fla.lst DCA 1978); Pitts v. State, 335 So. 2d 367 (Fla.lst DCA 1976); Leigh v. State, 312 So. 2d 464 (Fla.lst DCA 1975); Husk v. State, 305 So. 2d 19 (Fla.lst DCA 1974); Bunch v. State, 303 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Trolinger v. State, 300 So. 2d 310 (Fla.2d DCA 1974); Hester v. State, 357 So. 2d 481 (Fla.3d DCA 1978); Phelps v. State, 353 So. 2d 1221 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); Von Horn v. State, 334 So. 2d 43 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); Walker v. State, 319 So. 2d 642 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Walker v. State, 311 So. 2d 768 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Graham v. State, 292 So. 2d 373 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); Smith v. State, 288 So. 2d 522 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); Knight v. State, 373 So. 2d 52 (Fla.4th DCA 1979); Bul-lard v. State, 358 So. 2d 48 (Fla.4th DCA 1978); Greene v. State, 351 So. 2d 1031 (Fla.4th DCA 1976).
. Sims v. Georgia, 385 U.S. 538, 87 S.Ct. 639, 17 L.Ed.2d 593 (1967).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (22 total)
-
Wilson v. State, 436 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 1983)…confessions of appellant taken at the police station. The record clearly establishes that the trial court responsibly carried out its duty to determine the voluntariness of the confessions before they were admitted into evidence. Peterson v. State, 382 So. 2d 701 (Fla.1980). In addition, the instructions given to the jury concerned the weight that should be given to the confessions and not their voluntariness. Trial counsel made no objection when the court gave the standard jury instruction in this regard. W…
-
Johnson v. State, 696 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 1997)…. at 1212-13 (footnote omitted). The modification of McDole discussed in the excerpt from Antone has been applied numerous times both by this Court and the district courts. E.g., Hoffman v. State, 474 So. 2d 1178, 1181 (Fla.1985); Peterson v. State, 382 So. 2d 701, 702 (Fla.1980); Smothers v. State, 513 So. 2d 776, 777 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Williams v. State, 397 So. 2d 1044, 1045 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). In this case, it is clear that the issue of voluntariness was specifically before the court. The record, with…
-
Hoffman v. State, 474 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 1985)….S. 538, 87 S.Ct. 639, 17 L.Ed.2d 593 (1967) and McDole v. State, 283 So. 2d 553 (Fla.1973). We have held that a trial judge need not recite a finding of voluntariness if his having made such a finding is apparent from the record. Peterson v. State, 382 So. 2d 701 (Fla.1980). In this case evidence was presented to show that the confessions were voluntarily given and the issue was argued by the parties. The judge ruled the testimony about the confessions admissible. We therefore find that the record shows with…
Previewing 3 of 22 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (25 total)
- Sims v. Georgia, 385 U.S. 538 (U.S. 1967)
- McDOLE v. State, 283 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1973)
- Wilson v. State, 304 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 1974)
- Victoriano Melero v. State, 306 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- von Horn v. State, 334 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Trolinger v. State, 300 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- Bunch v. State, 303 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Knight v. State, 373 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- In the Interest of Floyd Steven Husk v. State, 305 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Anton Kevin Peterson v. State, 372 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)