STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT PRESLEY, 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.
The State appealed the dismissal of a second degree murder charge against Robert Presley, who was charged after his accomplice was killed by police during a robbery. The court affirmed the denial of Presley's motion to suppress his confession but reversed the dismissal of the murder charge, holding that Presley could be charged with second degree murder even though the victim was his accomplice rather than an innocent third party.
The court held that Presley's confession was properly admitted because although the first statements may have been made under improper circumstances, the subsequent confession was made after improper influences were removed and there was no basis to conclude the earlier statements contaminated the later ones. Additionally, under Florida Statutes section 782.04(3), a person engaged in perpetration of a robbery can be charged with second degree murder when another person is killed during the crime, even if that person is the defendant's accomplice.
[1] A subsequent confession is not rendered inadmissible by the fact that an earlier confession may have been improperly obtained, provided that the improper influences have…
[2] A defendant's incriminating statements are admissible if they were made voluntarily and intelligently after adequate warnings of constitutional rights, even if preceded b…
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“Even if Presley was induced by Ferguson's statements to make his confessions, no misrepresentations were made to him, and he was adequately warned as to his constitutional rights. There was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding his statements were freely and voluntarily made.”
Establishes the court's standard for evaluating the voluntariness of confessions and the factors supporting admission of Presley's confession.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert Presley and an accomplice attempted to rob the Howard Vernon Motel. During the robbery, police officers shot and killed Presley's accomplice as…
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 Motion To Suppress Confession cases and more on FLexlaw
SHARP, Judge.
The State of Florida appeals the lower court’s dismissal of a second degree murder charge against the defendant, Robert Presley; and Presley appeals the court’s denial of his motion to suppress his confession. The two proceedings were consolidated on appeal. We affirm the denial of Presley’s motion to suppress but we reverse the dismissal of the second degree murder charge.
Presley’s accomplice or co-perpetrator of a robbery of the Howard Vernon Motel was shot and killed by a police officer8 while attempting to flee the scene of the crime. Presley was charged with second degree murder. After his arrest, Presley gave three incriminating statements to police officer Ferguson. He made the statements after Ferguson told him to tell the truth, and that if a murder charge “was not factually justified, that the court or the judge would do away with it.” Even if Presley was induced by Ferguson’s statements to make his confessions, no misrepresentations were made to him, and he was adequately warned as to his constitutional rights. There was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding his statements were freely and voluntarily made. Paramore v. State, 229 So. 2d 855 (Fla.1969).
Presley made earlier incriminating statements to police officers Aldrich and Grimm. He admitted being with the accomplice but denied any involvement in the crime. The trial court excluded these statements because it appeared Presley was intoxicated when he made them, and did not intelligently waive his rights. He made the other statements twelve hours later, after being given a full explanation of his rights, when he was not intoxicated.
Where two confessions have been given, the mere fact that the first confession may have been obtained as a result of improper influence does not necessarily make inadmissible a subsequent confession, provided there has been a showing that the improper influences have been removed.
State v. Holt, 354 So. 2d 888, 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), cert. denied 361 So. 2d 832 (Fla.1978), appeal dismissed 361 So. 2d 832 (Fla.1978). In this case there also appears no basis to conclude the earlier statements “contaminated” the later ones in any way.1 In Presley’s first statement, he denied participation in the crime. We reject Presley’s argument that his first statement let “the cat out of the bag” and psychologically pressured him to make the later statements.2
The final point in this appeal was recently decided by the Florida Supreme Court in favor of the State. Even though the deceased was Presley’s accomplice in the robbery, and not an “innocent victim,” Presley can be charged with second degree murder under section 782.04(3), Florida Statutes (1975).3 Mikenas v. State, 367 So. 2d 606 (Fla.1979). Accordingly we reverse and remand this case for trial.
• AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED and REMANDED.
DAUKSCH, C. J., and COBB, J., concur. . State v. Outten, 206 So. 2d 392 (Fla.1968).
. Compare United States v. Bayer, 331 U.S. 532, 67 S.Ct. 1394, 91 L.Ed. 1654 (1947).
. Section 782.04(3), Fla.Stat. (1975) provides: When a person is killed in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any arson, sexual battery, robbery, burglary, kidnapping, aircraft piracy, or unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb by a person other than the person engaged in the perpetration of or in the attempt to perpetrate such felony, the person perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate such felony shall be guilty of murder in the second degree, which constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s.775.082, s.775.083, or s. 775.084.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harley v. State, 407 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…atement is induced by comments of the interrogating officer, if those comments do not constitute misrepresentation and the accused is adequately warned of his constitutional rights, the statement may be freely and voluntarily made. State v. Presley, 389 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). In the present case, Harley was twice read his Miranda warnings prior to the giving of the statement, he signed a written waiver of his constitutional rights, and at the close of his recorded statement he stated that his statem…
-
McGRIFF v. State, 497 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…s, 408 U.S. 935, 92 S.Ct. 2857, 33 L.Ed.2d 751 (1972); Rubasky v. State, 401 So. 2d 894 (Fla. 5th DCA), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 973, 102 S.Ct. 524, 70 L.Ed.2d 393 (1981); La Rocca v. State, 401 So. 2d 866, 867-68 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); State v. Presley, 389 So. 2d 216, 217 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). The defendant’s next point, attacking the admissibility of certain police testimony concerning a photo lineup identification of the defendant, does not present reversible error. We conclude that the error, if any, in admit…
-
Silas v. State, 431 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…atement is induced by comments of the interrogating officer, if those comments do not constitute misrepresentation and the accused is adequately warned of his constitutional rights, the statement may be freely and voluntarily made. State v. Presley, 389 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). In the case sub judice, appellant was adequately informed of his constitutional rights and his admission to Dean was knowingly and voluntarily made. There was no error in its being admitted into evidence. Appellant also seeks…
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
- United States v. Bayer, 331 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1947)
- Sanelco, Inc. v. Roger Wells & the Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 229 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 1969)
- Williams v. Barron Roofing Co., 206 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1968)
- State v. Outten, 206 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1968)
- Mikenas v. State, 367 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1978)
- State v. Holt, 354 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)