RODNEY MCCUMBER, 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.
McCumber appeals his conviction for breaking and entering a dwelling and grand larceny, challenging the admission of incriminating statements made during police interrogation and objecting to prosecutorial comments about a co-charged suspect. The court affirmed the conviction, finding no constitutional violation in either the admission of statements or the prosecutor's remarks.
The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting the statements or denying the mistrial motion. Although McCumber was not advised of his rights immediately before the "round robin," he had been advised an hour earlier, did not request counsel, and the statements were given freely and voluntarily. The prosecutor's remarks were not inflammatory and provided necessary context for McCumber's confession, and thus did not violate his right to confront witnesses.
“While the appellant wasn't advised of his constitutional rights immediately prior to the "round robin", he was advised of his rights about an hour earlier.”
Establishes the court's rationale that prior warning, even if not immediately before interrogation, satisfied constitutional requirements
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcCumber was charged with breaking and entering a dwelling and grand larceny. During a "round robin" police interrogation—a technique where charged pa…
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 Mistrial Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant seeks review of the judgment and sentence entered by the trial-court, pursuant to a jury verdict finding: him guilty of breaking and entering a. dwelling, and grand larceny.
*628The appellant has preserved two points for review, contending that the trial court erred in: 1. Admitting into evidence incriminating admissions made by the appellant during a “round robin” interrogation,1 on the grounds that said statements were obtained in violation of appellant’s rights in that he was not warned of his constitutional rights prior to the interrogation, that his counsel was not present during said interrogation, and that the statement was not freely and voluntarily given; and 2. Failing to grant a mistrial, when the prosecuting attorney commented on remarks allegedly made by another who was charged with the crime [Charles A. Hinton], who was not a party to the cause, on the grounds that said comments could do nothing but inflame and prejudice the jury against the appellant and violated the appellant’s constitutional right to confront his accuser. We find no error, and affirm.
While the appellant wasn’t advised of his constitutional rights immediately prior to the “round robin”, he was advised of his rights about an hour earlier. Furthermore, the appellant did not request the presence of his attorney at the interrogation and the record affirmatively shows the appellant’s statements were given freely and voluntarily. See: Roberts v. State, Fla.1964, 164 So.2d 817; Crum v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 24; Montgomery v. State, Fla.1965, 176 So.2d 331; Morgan v. State, Fla.App. 1965, 177 So.2d 60.
The remarks of the prosecuting attorney were not of such an inflammatory nature so as to prejudice the jury against the appellant, and presented only that information necessary to give substance to the circumstances under which the appellant made his confession. Thus, the appellant’s right to confront Hinton was not violated, and the trial court properly denied the appellant’s motion for mistrial. See: Spencer v. State, Fla.1961, 133 So.2d 729. In Perry v. State, 146 Fla. 187, 200 So. 525, the court said the following in affirming a conviction:
* * ‡ * * *
“The granting of a mistrial should be only for a specified fundamental or prejudicial error which has been committed in the trial of such a nature as will vitiate the result. * * * ”
* * * * * *
Therefore, for the reasons stated the judgment and sentence here under review is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bernis Vail v. State, 205 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See McCumber v. State, Fla. App.1966, 182 So. 2d 627; Brisbon v. State, Fla.App.1967, 201 So. 2d 832.…
-
Laboda v. State, 196 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See: Collins v. State, Fla. 1965, 180 So. 2d 340; Casso v. State, Fla.App.1966, 182 So. 2d 252; McCumber v. State, Fla.App.1966, 182 So. 2d 627; Miori v. State, Fla.App.1966, 189 So. 2d 208.…
-
Holmes v. State, 228 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…in that ruling of the trial court. See Spencer v. State, FIa.1961, 133 So. 2d 729, 731, cert. denied, 369 U.S. 880, 82 S.Ct. 1155, 8 L.Ed.2d 283 (1962), cert. denied, 372 U.S. 904, 83 S.Ct. 742, 9 L.Ed.2d 730 (1963); McCumber v. State, Fla.App.1966, 182 So. 2d 627, 628. In the Spencer case the Supreme Court said: “In actuality, there is probably very little that the prosecutors themselves could have advanced which would have been any more damning of the conduct of this appellant than the gruesome evidence whi…
Authorities Cited
- Crum v. State, 172 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Emmitt Monroe Spencer v. State, 133 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 1961)
- Perry v. State, 146 Fla. 187 (Fla. 1941)
- Montgomery v. State, 176 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 1965)
- Roberts v. State, 164 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1964)
- Morgan v. State, 177 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)