STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBIN LEE DANIELS, 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 court held that Miranda warnings were not required for a statement made under oath in response to an investigative subpoena, as the witness was granted transactional immunity.
The State appealed an order suppressing a sworn statement made by Daniels in response to an investigative subpoena. Daniels was being prosecuted for p…
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 Investigative Subpoena cases and more on FLexlaw
SHARP, Judge.
The State appeals an order granting Daniels’ motion to suppress a written statement made by him under oath before a deputy sheriff and in response to an investigative subpoena issued by the State Attorney pursuant to section 27.04, Florida Statutes (1979).
Daniels was being prosecuted for perjury based on the statement which was suppressed. He argues the statement should have been suppressed because the deputy failed to give him any Miranda
warnings and the deputy was not empowered to require him to answer pursuant to section 27.04 or section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1979), and thereby to grant him “transactional immunity” from prosecution for the subject matter of his responses. We disagree.
The result in this case is dictated by a prior decision of this court involving these matters. In Daniels v. Kirkland, 379 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), we ruled that Daniels could not be prosecuted for burglary charges, which was the subject matter of Daniels’ statement. However, we held that the immunity afforded pursuant to section 914.04 did not preclude prosecution for any false statements made by Daniels during the investigation. U. S. v. Mandujano, 425 U.S. 564, 96 S.Ct. 1768, 48 L.Ed.2d 212 (1976); Gordon v. State, 104 So. 2d 524 (Fla.1958); State v. Saunders, 378 So. 2d 1305 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).
Because Daniels had immunity to respond truthfully to the State’s investigative subpoena, no Miranda warnings were required. The order granting the motion to suppress is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
DAUKSCH, C.' J., and COWART, J., concur. . Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 443, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1611, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Virgie Fowler v. State, 447 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…would not protect her from a subsequent prosecution for perjury. Perjured testimony is beyond the scope of the immunity which was intended to protect the witness from past indiscretions. Gordon v. State, 104 So. 2d 524 (Fla.1958); State v. Daniels, 400 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 5th DCA), petition for review denied, 411 So. 2d 381 (Fla.1981); Daniels v. Kirkland, 379 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). The 1981 grant of immunity did not free Fowler to perjure herself. However, it did preclude the state from using that co…
Authorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- United States v. Mandujano, 425 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1976)
- Gordon v. State, 104 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 1958)
- Daniels v. The Honorable Thomas E. Kirkland, 379 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Merritt v. Bankers Tr. Co., 378 So. 2d 1305 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)