B.R.S., A CHILD, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed a delinquency adjudication for loitering and prowling because the state's evidence was insufficient, as the deputy's testimony about the appellant's explanations was inadmissible without Miranda warnings.
When a deputy's testimony regarding a suspect's explanations is the sole evidence of guilt and was obtained without Miranda warnings, the adjudication must be reversed for insufficient evidence.
[1] A delinquency adjudication based solely on a deputy's testimony regarding a suspect's statements must be reversed when the trial court fails to establish that Miranda war…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Without the Miranda predicate, the deputy's crucial testimony concerning the appellant's inconsistent explanations should have been excluded.”
Court explaining why the deputy's testimony was inadmissible and constituted the entire basis for the state's case
A deputy sheriff stopped the appellant at 2:45 a.m. coming out of an alleyway and questioned him about his presence in the area. The trial court refus…
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 Exclusion Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
B.R.S. appeals an adjudication of delinquency for loitering and prowling, contrary to Section 856.021 (1979), Florida Statutes. We agree with the appellant that the trial court erred in denying his timely motion for judgment of acquittal. Because we conclude that the state’s evidence was insufficient, we will not rule on the appellant’s alternate contention that the deputy sheriff did not have a “founded suspicion” to justify appellant’s initial detention.
The state’s case in chief was based entirely on the testimony of a deputy sheriff who had stopped the appellant about 2:45 a. m., coming out of an alleyway. The trial court refused to allow defense counsel to ask the deputy whether he had read the appellant his Miranda rights before requiring him to explain his presence in the area where he was apprehended. Without the Miranda predicate, the deputy’s crucial testimony concerning the appellant’s inconsistent explanations should have been excluded. See State v. Ecker, 311 So. 2d 104, 110 (Fla. 1975). And once those explanations are excluded, there being no other competent, substantial evidence supporting the appellant’s guilt, the court’s adjudication of delinquency must be
REVERSED.
MILLS, ERVIN and LARRY G. SMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
R.S. v. State, 710 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…and at trial, pursuant to a timely defense objection, the response to Wilkinson’s inquiry was properly excluded by the trial court during the presentation of the state’s case. See Smith v. State, 695 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); B.R.S. v. State, 404 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). On appeal, R.S. contends that the evidence adduced below was insufficient to support his conviction. He suggests that he and his companion had stopped their car in the parking lot to urinate; presumably, this suggestion is adva…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Ecker, 311 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 1975)