JOSEPH ALPHONSO LA ROCCA, 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.
Joseph La Rocca appealed his jury conviction for first degree murder, challenging the admissibility of his confession and arguing that testimony about polygraph results was improperly admitted. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, finding that the confession was voluntary despite minimizing statements by the polygraph examiner, and that any polygraph evidence error was initiated by the defendant himself on cross-examination.
The court held that the minimizing statements by the polygraph examiner did not constitute psychological coercion under the totality of circumstances, as La Rocca was mentally competent, given Miranda warnings, and not subjected to deprivation or false inducements. Additionally, any error in introducing polygraph evidence was not grounds for reversal because the defendant himself introduced such evidence during cross-examination.
[1] A confession made subsequent to promises or inducements that delude a defendant as to their true position or exert improper influence will be suppressed as the product of…
[2] A voluntary confession made by a mentally competent defendant who has received Miranda warnings and has not been subjected to fear or false inducements may be admitted in…
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“a confession made subsequent to promises or inducements which delude a defendant as to his true position or have the effect of exerting improper and undue influence over his mind will be suppressed as the product of illegal psychological coercion”
Establishes the legal standard for when confessions must be suppressed due to psychological coercion
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLa Rocca and co-defendant Dorothy Wright were charged with murdering 18-year-old Barbie Hall. Wright shot the victim, who fell to the ground, and La R…
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 Polygraph Examination Admissibility cases and more on FLexlaw
FERGUSON, Judge.
In his appeal from a jury conviction of first degree murder, Joseph La Rocca raises several issues on appeal, two of which merit discussion.
First, La Rocca claims that his confession should have been suppressed because under the circumstances of the case, the “minimization process” used by the polygraph examiner was a deceptive practice which amounted to psychological coercion. La Rocca and a co-defendant Dorothy Wright were charged with first degree murder of 18-year-old Barbie Hall. The uncontrovert-ed testimony is that the victim fell to the ground after being shot at least once by Wright. There is evidence that La Rocca then took the gun from Wright and fired additional shots into the victim’s prostrate body. The medical examiner testified to finding three bullet wounds in Hall’s body, any one of which could have been the cause of death. During the polygraph test, the examiner implied that where someone else had fired the first shot, La Rocca’s involvement would be minimized.
It is settled Florida law that a confession made subsequent to promises or inducements which delude a defendant as to his true position or have the effect of exerting improper and undue influence over his mind will be suppressed as the product of illegal psychological coercion. Brewer v. State, 386 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 1980); Frazier v. State, 107 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 1958); State v. Beck, 390 So. 2d 748 (Fla.3d DCA 1980).
It is equally well established that where a mentally competent defendant has been given Miranda warnings and has not been placed in fear of material or physical harm, or given false inducements, his voluntary confession may properly be admitted into evidence. See, e.g., Palmes v. State, 397 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 1981); Wilson v. State, 304 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 1974); State v. Caballero, 396 So. 2d 1210 (Fla.3d DCA 1981); State v. Beck, supra; Barnason v. State, 371 So. 2d 680 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); DeCastro v. State, 359 So. 2d 551 (Fla.3d DCA 1978). The record here supports the finding that La Rocca was given and knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights, that the statements were given voluntarily and that La Rocca was not coerced by deprivation of food or sleep. See, e.g., State v. Riocabo, 372 So. 2d 126 (Fla.3d DCA 1979), dismissed, 378 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 1979) (trial court’s determination will not be reversed unless clearly shown to be without basis); Churney v. State, 348 So. 2d 395 (Fla.3d DCA 1977) (trial court’s ruling on motion to suppress comes to appellate court with presumption of correctness).
Under the totality of circumstance present here we do not find the examiner’s minimizing statements to the effect that because defendant did not fire the first shot, what he did was not “that big of deal,” constitutes coerciveness, see, e.g., Burch v. State, 343 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 1977), or were so psychologically effective as to break La Rocca’s will and produce the confession, see, e.g., State v. Caballero, supra; Barnason v. State, supra.
Second, we consider La Rocca’s argument that the testimony of the polygraph examiner that La Rocca stated he took the “Vegas Roll,” and “lost,” was an improper implication that La Rocca had failed a lie detector test. The general rule that absent stipulation of the parties, the results of polygraph examinations are not admissible, Young v. State, 387 So. 2d 512 (Fla.1st DCA 1980), does not compel reversal where, as here, the error in the introduction of or comment upon polygraph evidence was introduced by the defendant on cross-examination. See, e.g., Jackson v. State, 359 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1102, 99 S.Ct. 881, 59 L.Ed.2d 63 (1979) (appellant cannot initiate error, then seek reversal based on that error); Ellison v. State, 349 So. 2d 731 (Fla.3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 357 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 1978); White v. State, 348 So. 2d 1170 (Fla.3d DCA 1977).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Bush v. State, 461 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 1984)…on is not rendered inadmissible because the police tell the accused that it would be easier on him if he told the truth. Paramore v. State, 229 So. 2d 855, 858 (Fla.1969). On this point, the instant case is essentially similar to La Rocca v. State, 401 So. 2d 866, 868 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), where police statements that minimized the defendant’s action were held not to be coercive. Under the totality of the circumstances, the statements made to Bush did not overcome his will and produce the confession. More like…
-
Wright v. State, 402 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…rmed. . No challenge was made below or is made here to the voluntariness of Wright’s testimony before the grand jury or her signed waiver of immunity. . La Rocca’s conviction for first degree murder was affirmed by this court in La Rocca v. State, 401 So. 2d 866 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). . A Dade County Public Safety Department detective testified that on February 14, 1979, more than two weeks after the murder, he received an anonymous phone call in which the male caller told him that a girl named Barbara Hall h…
-
Prudence F. Williams v. State, 441 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…); Brewer v. State, 386 So. 2d at 235, Foreman v. State, 400 So. 2d at 1047. In the case sub judice, the record reveals a course of conduct and statements which, each taken individually, might not vitiate a confession: deception, La Rocca v. State, 401 So. 2d 866 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (polygraph examiner lied, confession voluntary); notify court of cooperation, Smith v. State, 422 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Bova v. State, 392 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980) (not per se unlawful inducement to promise to tel…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (16 total)
- Palmes v. State, 397 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 1981)
- Frazier v. State, 107 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 1958)
- Brewer v. State, 386 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 1980)
- Jackson B. Burch v. State, 343 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 1977)
- Wilson v. State, 304 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 1974)
- Jackson v. State, 359 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 1978)
- Jackson v. Florida, 439 U.S. 1102 (U.S. 1979)
- Ellison v. State, 349 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- State v. Riocabo, 372 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- State v. Beck, 390 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)