DAVID JOHN LETT, 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.
David John Lett appeals his jury conviction for robbery, challenging the trial court's refusal to grant a directed verdict of acquittal and the admission of his oral statements to a detective. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding both the state presented a prima facie case for jury consideration and that Lett's oral statements were voluntarily made before any promises were offered by police.
The trial court did not err. The state presented a prima facie case properly submitted to the jury, and Lett's oral statements were admissible because they were made voluntarily before any inducing promises were offered; subsequent promises regarding written statements do not render prior voluntary oral statements inadmissible.
“A defendant moving for a directed verdict of acquittal admits all facts in evidence adduced and every con-elusion favorable to the state fairly and reasonably inferable therefrom.”
Establishes the legal standard for reviewing a trial court's denial of a motion for directed verdict of acquittal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLett was arrested and held for investigation for murder. While in custody, he orally volunteered information regarding a robbery. A detective subseque…
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 Voluntariness Of Statements cases and more on FLexlaw
Represented by the public defender, the defendant, David John Lett was tried by jury and found guilty of the crime of robbery.
On appeal he first complains that the trial court erred in failing to direct a verdict of acquittal at the close of the state’s case. Contrarily the state submits that it presented a prima facie case and that the court properly submitted it to the jury. We agree. A defendant moving for a directed verdict of acquittal admits all facts in evidence adduced and every con-elusion favorable to the state fairly and reasonably inferable therefrom. Victor v. State, 1939, 141 Fla. 508, 193 So. 762, 763. Review of this record discloses no error in submitting the case to the jury.
The defendant next charges that the court erred in permitting a detective to testify as to certain statements made by the defendant, claiming that the officer made promises in order to secure the statements. The state, on the other hand, argues that the officer’s promise not to take out a warrant on this particular crime was made after the defendant voluntarily admitted the robbery. The record shows that the defendant orally volunteered information regarding the robbery at a time when he was being held for investigation for murder and that the officer subsequently promised not to take out a warrant on the offense if the defendant would reduce his statements to writing. The court made the following ruling:
“ * * * neither of the written statements are admissible. Neither have been received into evidence. Neither is to be produced before the jury. The oral conversation, however, between the defendant David John Lett and this witness prior to the time he has testified about being reduced to writing and promises being made will be admitted before the jury.”
When it is made to appear prima facie by the state that a confession was freely and voluntarily made without inducement of any kind, the burden of showing that it was not freely and voluntarily made is then upon the person opposing its acceptance in evidence. Nickels v. State, 1925, 90 Fla. 659, 106 So. 479; Cochran v. State, Fla.App.1960, 117 So.2d 544, 79 A.L.R.2d 638. The rules governing the admissibility of an incriminating admission from which guilt may be inferred are similar to the rules governing the admissibility of a confession. Louette v. State, 1943, 152 Fla. 495, 12 So.2d 168, 172-173. The trial court is charged with the responsibility of *570determining whether such an admission was freely and voluntarily given! Ibid. This issue was competently resolved against the defendant. Promises of the officer which induced subsequent written ■ statements did not render inadmissible prior voluntary statements. 2 Underhills Criminal Evidence, § 386 at note 44.
Reversible error not having been demonstrated, the judgment of conviction is accordingly affirmed.
Affirmed.
SMITH, C. J., and WHITE and ANDREWS, TJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Garmise v. State, 311 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…ce as to the jury verdict. When a defendant moves for [*749] a directed verdict of acquittal, he admits all facts in evidence adduced and every conclusion favorable to the State fairly and reasonably inferable therefrom. Lett v. State, Fla.App.1965, 174 So. 2d 568, 569; Devlin v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So. 2d 82. A motion for judgment of acquittal should not be granted unless it is apparent that no legally sufficient evidence has been submitted upon which the jury could legally find a verdict of guilty. Shi…
-
Devlin v. State, 175 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…appears that there was sufficient to warrant the court sending the matter to the jury, because all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence adduced and conclusions are in favor of the party moved against. See: Lett v. State, Fla.App.1965, 174 So. 2d 568, (opinion filed April 30, 1965), and authorities cited therein. It appears from the record on appeal that the instructions were proper and it was within the province of the trier of the fact to render the verdict here under review, and it is not th…
-
Hanks v. State, 305 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…to a judgment of acquittal, it is the law that a defendant who moves for a judgment of acquittal admits all facts introduced into evidence and every inference favorable to the state which may be drawn from the evidence. Lett v. State, Fla.App. 1965, 174 So. 2d 568; Dancy v. State, Fla.App.1973, 284 So. 2d 452. In our view, the record reveals not that the evidence as to identity was insufficient, but to the contrary, as already stated, the state offered adequate proof of identity. Lastly, we find little meri…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Nickels v. State, 106 So. 479 (Fla. 1925)
- Louette v. State, 152 Fla. 495 (Fla. 1943)
- Victor v. State, 141 Fla. 508 (Fla. 1939)
- Cochran v. State, 117 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)