DARRYL W. SHOOK, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Unequivocal Request For Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals the denial of his motion to suppress a taped statement made to police while in custody, and the admission of testimony at trial of statements Appellant made to eyewitnesses. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for a new trial.
We hold that Appellant’s statement, “Get me an attorney right now” was an unequivocal request for counsel, and interrogation should have ceased immediately, and not resumed until counsel was provided. Smith v. Illinois, 469 U.S. 91, 105 S.Ct. 490, 83 L.Ed.2d 488 (1984); Almeida v. State, 737 So. 2d 520 (Fla.1999), cert. denied — U.S.-, 120 S.Ct. 1221, 145 L.Ed.2d 1121 (2000). Therefore, we must reverse and remand for a new trial. Appellant’s other issue on appeal claiming the trial court erred in admitting testimony of certain witnesses is without merit.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
BOOTH, ALLEN and PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Moss v. State, 60 So. 3d 540 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…s request for a lawyer was unequivocal. During the detective’s reading of the Miranda rights, Moss said, “I want a lawyer (unintelligible)” and “I want to talk to a lawyer.” It is hard to imagine more unequivocal statements. Compare Shook v. State, 770 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (holding that “Get me an attorney right now” was an unequivocal request for counsel), and Cannady v. Dugger, 931 F. 2d 752, 755 (11th Cir.1991) (holding that “I think I should call my lawyer” was unequivocal); State v. Brown, 287…
-
Brennan v. State, 789 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…evelop the facts demonstrating that he made an unequivocal request for counsel prior to his confession constitutes a facially sufficient claim for relief because a motion to suppress would be well taken under those circumstances. See Shook v. State, 770 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (reversing for a new trial when the trial court erroneously denied a motion to suppress based on continued interrogation following the defendant’s unequivocal request for counsel). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order…
Authorities Cited
- Smith v. Illinois, 469 U.S. 91 (U.S. 1984)
- Almeida v. State, 737 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1999)