LARRY EDWARD BROCKELBANK, 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.
Brockelbank was convicted of ten counts of burglary and grand theft based on confessions obtained after police promised to release him from custody. The court reversed his conviction, holding that confessions induced by promises of benefit are involuntary and inadmissible.
The confessions were involuntary and inadmissible because they were obtained through direct promises of benefit in exchange for the confessions. A confession cannot be obtained by any direct or implied promise, however slight, if it is to be admissible.
[1] A confession is inadmissible if obtained in exchange for a promise of immediate release from custody.
[2] A confession is inadmissible if obtained in exchange for a promise that no other charges will be filed immediately.
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 cannot be obtained by any direct or implied promise, however slight, if it is to be admissible.”
Establishes the legal rule governing voluntariness of confessions; any promise, direct or implied, renders a confession inadmissible.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice arrested Brockelbank for residential burglary. While in custody requesting treatment for heroin withdrawal, he met with his probation officer a…
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 Burden Of Proof For Confession Voluntariness cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Judge.
Larry Edward Brockelbank appeals his conviction and sentences for ten counts of burglary and grand theft, alleging the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his confessions as involuntary. We hold that the confessions were obtained in exchange for promises, and we reverse.
The testimony at the suppression hearing below indicated that police officers arrested appellant for a residential burglary. He was transported to a police station whereupon appellant requested treatment for heroin withdrawal and expressed a desire to get out of jail. He was transferred to a hospital for treatment of heroin withdrawal. After meeting with his probation officer (from a prior offense) and police officers in the hospital, appellant agreed to assist the officers and effect the return of various items stolen during other crimes in return for a promise of an immediate release from jail on the charge filed. The release was for the purpose of returning the property and to permit appellant to get his personal affairs in order. The police officers also promised that no other charges would be filed against appellant immediately, and told appellant that his release was arranged. Appellant then confessed to the charges on appeal. The authorities explained the agreement to a judge who released appellant on a $1,000.00 bond. Two weeks later, he was rearrested on all charges and after the motion to suppress was denied, he entered a plea of nolo contendere to the cases on appeal, reserving the right to appeal the ruling denying suppression. Both parties stipulated that the denial of the motion to suppress was dispos-itive as to the charges on appeal.
A confession cannot be obtained by any direct or implied promise, however slight, if it is to be admissible. Fillinger v. State, 349 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 374 So. 2d 101 (Fla.1979). Below, the confessions were obtained in return for the promise, later carried out, to release appellant from custody so that he could put his personal affairs in order. Since this uncontradicted testimony indicates the confessions below were induced by promise of benefit, the state failed to carry its burden of proving at the suppression hearing that the confessions were freely and voluntarily made.
REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions to set aside only the conviction and sentences imposed in the cases of this appeal.
HOBSON, A. C. J., and GRIMES, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Blake v. State, 972 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 2007)…lectric chair, suggested that they had the power to effect leniency, and suggested to the appellant that he would not be given a fair trial.”). Similarly, a confession made in return for a promise of release is involuntary. See Brockelbank v. State, 407 So. 2d 368, 369 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). However, not all police statements that arguably could be considered “promises” render a confession involuntary. For example, “[t]he fact that a police officer agrees to make one’s cooperation known to prosecuting authoritie…
-
Rickard v. State, 508 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…er for inculpatory statements to be admissible, they must have been freely and voluntarily given; they cannot have been brought about by any direct or implied promise, however slight. Brewer v. State, 386 So. 2d 232 (Fla.1980); Brockelbank v. State, 407 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). An accused’s emotional condition when giving such statements may have an important bearing on their volun-tariness. Breedlove v. State, 364 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), cert. denied, 374 So. 2d 101 (Fla.1979). Here, the trial…
-
State v. Carroll, 103 So. 3d 929 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…lpatory statement involuntary.”). In this case, the detective’s statement that he would “see what it is that we can do to help you out” did not rise to the level of a promise of leniency in return for Carroll’s confession. Cf. Brockelbank v. State, 407 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) (holding that suppression of the defendant’s statements was warranted where the officers promised the defendant an immediate release from jail and that no other charges would be filed against him if he confessed to the charges). D…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fillinger v. State, 349 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)