PEDRO SUBIRATS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
The appellate court affirmed a conviction for breaking and entering and grand larceny, holding that the trial court did not err in admitting testimony about an oral confession despite the appellant's claim of a language barrier.
No, the trial court did not err in admitting the testimony about the oral confession.
“In this non-jury trial, both the admissibility and the weight to be given the alleged oral confession were for determination by the trial court.”
Establishes that the trial judge, not the jury, was responsible for deciding whether the confession was admissible and how much weight to give it.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was convicted of breaking and entering a building and grand larceny in a bench trial. The sole issue on appeal concerned the admissibili…
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 Language Barrier cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was convicted and sentenced of (1) breaking and entering a building and (2) grand larceny. The trial was before the court. The appellant was found guilty on both counts. On this appeal, the only substantial question raised is whether the court erred in admitting testimony as to an oral confession. It is contended by the appellant that the confession could not have been made because of a language barrier. In this non-jury trial, both the admissibility and the weight to be given the alleged oral confession were for determination by the trial court. The issue was squarely presented by the positive testimony of the police officer that, at the time of the arrest, the appellant was fully able to understand and make himself understood in English. There is no testimony except that of the defendant that he did not speak English.
Affirmed.