WILLIE HOWARD, 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.
Willie Howard was convicted of burglary after the trial court admitted his statements to an armed victim who had recovered stolen property and confronted him at gunpoint. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that Howard's statements were involuntary confessions made to a private person and therefore inadmissible under Florida law.
The court held that Howard's statements were involuntary confessions made to a private person and therefore inadmissible under Florida law. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial on all counts except the video recorder charge, for which the state failed to prove value and warranted a directed verdict of acquittal.
[1] Involuntary confessions or admissions given to private persons are inadmissible in Florida courts.
[2] A conviction based on involuntary statements cannot be considered harmless error when there is disputed proof regarding the defendant's involvement.
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“involuntary confessions or admissions given to private persons are inadmissible in Florida courts”
Establishes the governing legal standard for admissibility of statements made to private citizens under duress
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe victim's home was burglarized, and he later found the stolen property hidden near his house. The victim armed himself and waited for someone to re…
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 Directed Verdict Of Acquittal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial on the authority of Lawton v. State, 152 Fla. 821, 13 So. 2d 211 (1943); State v. Kettering, 483 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); and Peak v. State, 342 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). The appellant should be retried on all counts except the charge involving the video recorder for which the state failed to prove the value thereof. Appellant is entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal on that count.
The state called the burglary victim as its chief witness at trial. The victim testified that after his home was burglarized, he found the stolen property hidden near his home. The burglar[s] apparently intended to return later to retrieve it. Subsequently, the victim armed himself and waited for someone to retrieve the stolen property. When the appellant and another person approached the stolen property, the victim fired shots into the ground, ordered them to lie on the ground and then handcuffed them. The appellant denied having broken into the victim’s home. At that point the victim pointed his gun at appellant’s face and told appellant he was in no position to lie. Appellant then conceded to the victim that “yes, you’ve got us, you’ve got us now.” The trial court overruled objections by appellant to this testimony that the statements were involuntary. The person accompanying the appellant later testified at trial that he alone had burglarized the home and later secured appellant's help to retrieve the stolen goods. The cases cited above stand for the proposition that involuntary confessions or admissions given to private persons are inadmissible in Florida courts. We believe appellant’s statements were obviously involuntary and, in view of the disputed proof at trial about the appellant’s involvement, we cannot say the admission of such testimony was harmless. Nowlin v. State, 346 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 1977).
ANSTEAD and GUNTHER, JJ., concur. LETTS, J., dissents with opinion.
LETTS, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent in part. The error was harmless. The return of the defendants to the crime scene where they had all too obviously stashed the stolen goods constituted overwhelming evidence of guilt. However, I agree with the majority as to the count involving the video recorder.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Snipes v. State, 733 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 1999)…d reject the use of such an admission regardless of who applied the force to obtain the admission. In other words, courts should not be a party to or sanction such conduct by allowing its product to be used in court proceedings. Cf. Howard v. State, 515 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). The majority goes too far in today’s opinion. While I also concur in the majority’s resolution of the issue of proportionality, I note two other factors that support the majority’s outcome. One is that the apparent two aggrava…
-
D.B. v. State, 559 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…e D.B. could not have stolen the property on the day he was [*307] arrested since it was reported stolen two days earlier. Therefore, D.B. cannot be found guilty of grand theft. See R.W. v. State, 522 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Howard v. State, 515 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). For these reasons, the adjudication of delinquency under review is hereby affirmed as to the offenses of criminal mischief and burglary, but reversed as to grand theft.…
-
Mirabal v. State, 698 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…thing was promised to appellant as a means of securing his confession to the officer. Appellant’s confession to his employers was involuntary and should have been suppressed. See Lawton v. State, 152 Fla. 821, 13 So. 2d 211 (1943); Howard v. State, 515 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); State v. Kettering, 483 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Peak v. State, 342 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 3d DCA [*362] 1977). We find Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 107 S.Ct. 515, 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986), relied on by the state, inapposite…
Authorities Cited
- Nowlin v. State, 346 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 1977)
- In the Interest of S. L. M., 346 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 1977)
- Lawton v. State, 152 Fla. 821 (Fla. 1943)
- State v. Kettering, 483 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Parker Charles Peak v. State, 342 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)