WILLIAM JEROME WARREN, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Warren was arrested and given Miranda warnings, initially denied involvement in crimes, but after the investigating officer presented incriminating evidence (his wallet found at the crime scene), he made oral and written confessions. The court affirmed his conviction, holding that his initial denial of involvement did not constitute an invocation of the right to remain silent or to cease questioning absent an explicit statement to that effect.
The court held that Warren's initial denial of involvement did not constitute an unspoken election to exercise the right to remain silent. Because Warren did not explicitly indicate he wished to remain silent, consult with an attorney, or end the conversation, and because the confessions were otherwise freely and voluntarily made, they were properly admitted.
[1] A defendant's initial denial of involvement in a crime, after receiving Miranda warnings, does not, without more, constitute an election to exercise the right to remain s…
[2] Incriminating evidence presented to a suspect during interrogation may lead to a voluntary confession.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 defendant did not in any way indicate that he wished to remain silent, to consult with an attorney, or to end the conversation with the officer once it had begun.”
Establishes the critical distinction that an explicit statement is required to invoke the right to silence; a mere denial of involvement is insufficient.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAfter arrest and proper Miranda warnings, Warren initially denied any knowledge of the crimes. During continued questioning by the investigating offic…
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 Right To Remain Silent cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Judge.
After he was arrested and later properly given his Miranda warnings, Warren at first denied any knowledge of the crimes of which he was convicted below. However, upon further questioning by the investigating officer and the presentation of a piece of incriminating evidence — his wallet found at the scene of the offense— he made an oral and then a written confession. On this appeal, it is contended only that the interrogation should have ceased as soon as the defendant denied involvement and that the subsequently obtained confessions should therefore have been suppressed. We do not agree.
The defendant did not in any way indicate that he wished to remain silent, to consult with an attorney, or to end the conversation with the officer once it had begun. Compare, e. g., Breedlove v. State, 364 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Jones v. State, 346 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Webber v. State, 305 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); State v. Prosser, 235 So. 2d 740, 742 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970), cert. dismissed, 243 So. 2d 419 (Fla.1971).
And we concur with the statement in United States v. Jones, 486 F. 2d 599, 600 (5th Cir. 1973) that “[djenials of a crime by one well aware of his right to remain silent cannot, without more, be taken as an unspoken election to exercise the right to remain silent.” Accord, Brooks v. State, 229 A. 2d 833 (Del.1967); State v. Burley, 523 S.W. 2d 575 (Mo.App.1975).
Since there is ample evidence to sustain the trial court’s finding that the confessions were otherwise freely and voluntarily made, Ashley v. State, 265 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 1972); Finley v. State, 378 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), the judgment under review is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited (11 total)
- Ashley v. State, 265 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 1972)
- Jones v. State, 346 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Finley v. State, 378 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Daniels v. State, 235 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)
- State v. Prosser, 235 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)
- Powell v. State, 364 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Breedlove v. State, 364 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Webber v. State, 305 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- United States v. Jones, 486 F.2d 599 (5th Cir. 1973)
- Federal Pacific v. Lindy's OF Orlando, Inc., 243 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 1971)