ANTHONY CAPPETTO
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Anthony Cappetto was convicted of multiple crimes after waiving a jury trial and admitting oral confessions to police officers. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, rejecting the defendant's arguments that conviction cannot rest on an accomplice's untestifying oral confession and that burglary tools charges lack sufficient evidentiary connection.
The court found no basis for the appellant's questions in the record. The evidence amply supported the convictions through the appellant's own oral confessions to police officers regarding his participation in the crimes, his pointing out of the crime scenes, and his possession of burglary tools. The court affirmed all judgments.
“That the defendant committed or participated in the commission of each and every crime was proved by the evidence sufficent to establish the fact that appellant had, after the commission of said crimes, admitted and confessed orally to police officers that he had participated in the commission of such crimes”
Establishes that the conviction rested on the defendant's own oral confessions to police, not on the accomplice's testimony
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was charged with six crimes in six consolidated cases in the Criminal Court of Record of Dade County. The appellant waived his right to a ju…
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 Possession Of Burglary Tools cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant having been convicted in the Criminal Court of Record of Dade County, Florida in six certain cases, appealed from the judgment of that court in each of said cases numbered respectively 14575-A, 14576-A, 14586-A, 14587-A and 14569-A and 14700-A.
In the court below the cases were consolidated and tried together before the Judge of the Criminal Court of Record, the appellant having waived a jury, and submitted his case to said Judge. The cases having been so consolidated, they were brought here under one transcript of the record and stand consolidated for the purpose of our consideration.
On this appeal appellant presents two questions as follows:
“May a defendant charged with crime be convicted upon the oral confession of an accomplice, when said accomplice does not even testify in the trial of said cause, although at all times within the jurisdiction of the court and under and in the custody of the police?”
*723“May a defendant be convicted of the crime of possession of burglary tools when there is no testimony connecting the said tools with the defendant and no showing from the testimony that the tools described in the information were had or used by the defendants, or either of them, for any unlawful purpose?”
We fail to find any basis for the questions in the record. The record shows that in each case it was provided by uncontradicted evidence that the crime alleged had been committed. That the defendant committed or participated in the commission of each and every crime was proved by the evidence sufficent to establish the fact that appellant had, after the commission of said crimes, admitted and confessed orally to police officers that he had participated in the commission of such crimes and had pointed out to the police officers the several different buildings entered and explained the manner in which they had been entered by him and his accomplice, and that he owned and had in his possession at the time of the commission of the crimes burglary tools which were found a few feet from the automobile in which appellant was sitting at the time the arrest was made.
Witnesses for the State testified that appellant’s alleged accomplice in the presence of appellant had also stated to them that he and the appellant had committed the crimes referred to in the manner stated by the appellant and that the appellant did not contradict the statements of his said accomplice.
In the grounds for appeal filed in the lower court there is no contention that the alleged confessions and admissions made to the police officers by the appellant were not admissible in evidence.
The admissibility of the evidence showing the statements made by the appellant to the police officers is not raised by the questions supra admitted here.
We find the evidence as presented in the transcript amply sufficient to warrant the convictions and judgments.
No reversible error having been made to appear, each and .every of said judgments is hereby affirmed.
THOMAS, C. J., ADAMS and BARNS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Adair v. THE Island Club, 225 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)…Fla. 1949, 40 So. 2d 148. Adair contends that he was acting in the capacity of a rescuer, and that injury to a rescuer without the independent intervening action of a third party is within the foreseeability test. He cites Rose v. Peters, Fla.1955, 32 So. 2d 585, to show that Florida has recognized the rescue doctrine. In that case the Court held that the rescue doctrine could not be invoked to offset contributory negligence for the reasons, among others, that Mr. Rose, the injured party, was aware of the d…