MANUEL CASTRO DUBON, 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 first-degree murder conviction because police violated defendant's right to remain silent by continuing interrogation after he stated three times 'I have nothing to say,' rendering his subsequent confession involuntary.
When a defendant states 'I have nothing to say' during custodial interrogation, police must cease questioning, and continued questioning violates the defendant's right to remain silent and renders any subsequent statement involuntary.
[1] A defendant's statement 'I have nothing to say' during custodial interrogation is equivalent to an invocation of the right to remain silent, and police must cease questio…
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“I have nothing to say”
Appellant stated this at least three times during police custodial questioning before officers continued to question him until he confessed.
Appellant was seen beating his co-worker, who later died. He was arrested and during police custodial questioning, stated at least three times 'I have…
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 Rule Of Completeness cases and more on FLexlaw
BROWNING, C.J.
Appellant was seen beating his co-worker, who later died; he was sentenced to life imprisonment for first-degree murder. He appeals the conviction on three grounds: the admission into evidence of portions of his custodial statement after denial of his motion to suppress; the exclusion from evidence of the remainder of his custodial statement under the rule of completeness (section 90.108, Florida Statutes); and the trial court’s decision not to instruct the jury on section 776.013, Florida Statutes, effective October 1, 2006, concerning self-defense. We reverse.
We agree with Appellant’s claim that his motion to suppress portions of his custodial statement should have been granted. During police questioning, Appellant said, at least three times, “I have nothing to say”; yet, officers continued to question him until he confessed. Appellant’s comment is indistinguishable from the comment “I do not want to declare anything,” which was held by the Florida Supreme Court to invoke a defendant’s right to remain silent in Cuervo v. State, 967 So. 2d 155 (Fla.2007). Accordingly, the continued questioning in the instant case violated Appellant’s right to remain silent, and ren dered his subsequent statement involuntary.
Since Cuervo is dispositive and this case must be remanded for a new trial, Appellant’s other arguments are moot and are not addressed.
REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial.
VAN NORTWICK and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Alvarez v. State, 15 So. 3d 738 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…t technical, use of the phrase. . Alvarez argues his statement was ambiguous, not equivocal. See Rodriguez, 518 F. 3d at 1077 (equivocal evinces uncertainty; ambiguity allows more than one interpretation). . The state also cites to Dubon v. State, 982 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). That case does not give any context to the defendant's three custodial statements that he has “nothing to say.” Id. at 746-47.…
-
Miles v. State, 60 So. 3d 447 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…case and the binding authority of Cuervo and Owen and its progeny, we are compelled to hold that the trial court erred by denying Miles’ motion to suppress statements he made to police after he invoked his right to remain silent. See Dubon v. State, 982 So. 2d 746, 746-47 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). Hannless Error Analysis The trial court’s ruling is subject to harmless error analysis. The harmless error test places the “burden on the state, as the beneficiary of the error, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that…
-
Meshach Martin v. State, 987 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…dmissible. See Cuervo v. State, 967 So. 2d 155, 163 (Fla.2007) (determining that the statement “I don’t want to declare anything” made at the beginning of questioning was a clear invocation of the defendant’s right to remain silent); Dubon v. State, 982 So. 2d 746, 746 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (determining that the statement “I have nothing to say” made during questioning invoked the defendant’s right to remain silent); Smith v. State, 915 So. 2d 692, 692 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (noting that the defendant said to the d…
Authorities Cited
- Cuervo v. State, 967 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 2007)