EMMANUEL SIMMONS, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Cleo Douglas LeCROY v. State, 533 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 1988)
  …of the tape because appellant believed that the jury should hear it in order to weigh voluntariness. Appellant also argues that we should revisit an issue resolved by the district court below in the earlier interlocutory appeal. In State v. LeCroy, 435 So. 2d 354 [*754] (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), the district court held that the charge on the robbery counts was sufficient to apprise appellant of the nature of the crimes charged and did not mislead or embarrass appellant in the preparation of a defense. We decline…
• State v. Ruiz, 502 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
  …PER CURIAM. In our opinion the trial court erroneously granted the defendant’s motion to suppress. The evidence (cocaine) should have been received under the inevitable discovery doctrine. State v. LeCroy, 435 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), cert. denied, 473 U.S. 907, 105 S.Ct. 3532, 87 L.Ed.2d 656 (1985). “If the prosecution can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the information ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered ... then the eviden…
• State v. Cleo D. LeCROY and Jon M. LeCroy, 461 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 1984)
  …SHAW, Justice. This cause is before us on a certified question of great public importance. State v. LeCroy, 435 So. 2d 354, on rehearing, 441 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. The certified question reads in full: Where statements made by appellants when measured by traditional factual tests are found to have been gi…

Authorities Cited

• Hurtado v. People of California, 110 U.S. 516 (U.S. 1884)
• State v. Miller, 313 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 1975)