EDWARD JOHNSON FOREMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Edward Johnson Foreman appeals his burglary conviction following a plea of nolo contendere with a reserved right to challenge the denial of his motion to suppress his confession. The court reverses, finding that the detective's statements to Foreman about the victim's potential non-prosecution if property was returned constituted an implied promise that rendered his confession involuntary.
The court holds that the confession was involuntary and the motion to suppress should have been granted. The detective's statement regarding the victim's disinclination to prosecute if property were returned constituted an implied promise calculated to induce a confession, violating the standard that confessions must not be obtained by direct or implied promises however slight.
[1] A confession is involuntary and must be suppressed if induced by direct or implied promises of benefit or reward.
[2] A police officer's statement that a victim is unlikely to prosecute if property is returned can constitute an implied promise calculated to induce a confession.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“must not be extracted by any sort of threats or violence, nor obtained by direct or implied promises however siight”
Establishes the legal standard for evaluating voluntariness of confessions from Bram v. United States
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceForeman was arrested for burglary and questioned by a detective at the sheriff's office. During interrogation, the detective told Foreman that based o…
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 Clear Error Standard Of Review cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Edward Johnson Foreman appeals from a judgment and sentence for burglary after a plea of nolo contendere with express reservation of the right to appeal the denial of a motion to suppress his confession. He urges that his oral statement and written confession were induced by direct or implied promises of benefit or reward. We agree and reverse.
The only testimony considered in ruling on the motion to suppress was that of the detective who arrested Foreman and questioned him at the sheriff’s office. Although Foreman identifies three verbal exchanges which he urges constituted promises of benefit or reward, we find only one of them to merit discussion. The officer’s testimony established that he not only told the defendant that based on his experience as a police officer it was his observation that it is often helpful with the court if a suspect aids in the recovery of the property, is remorseful, and helps get things cleared up, he further and more explicitly told Foreman that he had talked with the victim and if Foreman returned the property, he did not think the victim was inclined to prosecute. In fact, the officer admitted that he “probably led Mr. Foreman to believe that she was not inclined to prosecute were the property returned to her."
The standard for reviewing the voluntariness of a confession is that it “must not be extracted by any sort of threats or violence, nor obtained by direct or implied promises however siight.” Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532,18 S.Ct. 183, 42 L.Ed.2d 568 (1897). [Emphasis supplied] The confession must be excluded if “the attending circumstances, or the declarations of those present at the making of the confession, are calculated to delude the prisoner as to his true position, or to exert improper or undue influence over his mind.” Frazier v. State, 107 So. 2d 16 (Fla.1958). Since the question of whether the confession was voluntary is a question of fact and fact questions are usually to be resolved by the trial court, we recognize that the appropriate test for review of a finding of voluntariness is the clear error test. Frazier, supra. In the instant case we find that the conclusions of the trial court that the confession was voluntarily made was clearly erroneous. The statement of the officer concerning the victim’s inclination not to prosecute if the property were returned clearly constitutes an implied promise calculated to induce a confession.
In Fullard v. State, 352 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), this Court reversed a conviction where a detective who was investigating a theft told the defendant, “If I get the lawn mower back there won’t be any problem.” The statement made there is quite similar to the one in the instant case. Both at least implied that if the defendant confessed, he would not be charged.
Accordingly, the motion to suppress should have been granted. In view of the stipulation by the State at the time of the entry of the plea of nolo contendere that a ruling which reversed the trial court’s order denying the defendant’s motions to suppress would be dispositive of the case and would terminate any further prosecution of the defendant on the charges contained in the information, the judgment and sentence are reversed.
REVERSED.
ERVIN, J., and LILES, WOODIE A. and PEARSON, TILLMAN (Retired), Associate Judges, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Favaloro, 424 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…luntary; not obtained by any direct or implied promises, however slight]; Frazier v. State, 107 So. 2d 16 (Fla.1958) [confessions must be excluded if obtained by declarations calculated to delude defendant as to his true position]; Foreman v. State, 400 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) [officer’s statement that the victim was inclined not to prosecute if property were returned clearly constitutes an implied promise calculated to induce a confession]; Hawthorne v. State, 377 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) [confe…
-
Prudence F. Williams v. State, 441 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…r the declarations of those present at the making of the confession, are calculated to delude the prisoner as to his true position, or to exert improper and undue influence over his mind. Frazier v. State, 107 So. 2d 16 (Fla.1958); Foreman v. State, 400 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); State v. Beck, 390 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), rev. denied, 399 So. 2d 1140 (Fla.1981). The burden of showing that a defendant’s statement was voluntarily made rests with the state and must be proved by a preponderance of the…
-
State v. Moore, 530 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…pro quo bargain for confession. See Fillinger v. State, 349 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) (larceny confession held involuntary because of interrogator’s promise to advise state attorney of defendant’s cooperation if he confessed); Foreman v. State, 400 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (burglary confession held involuntary where interrogator implied defendant would not be prosecuted if he confessed and returned the stolen item). While mindful that the voluntariness of a confession is invalidated when obtained i…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1897)
- Frazier v. State, 107 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 1958)
- Fullard v. State, 352 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Deeb v. Division OF Administration, 352 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)