KENNETH ALLEN ANDERSON, 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.
Kenneth Anderson appealed his convictions for breaking and entering an automobile and petit larceny, challenging the admissibility of an incriminating statement he made to police. The Florida appellate court affirmed, holding that Anderson's volunteered statement after proper Miranda warnings was admissible and did not violate his constitutional rights.
The trial court correctly admitted Anderson's statement because it was a volunteered statement made without custodial interrogation, and the Miranda decision explicitly provides that volunteered statements are not barred by the Fifth Amendment and are admissible.
“The Miranda decision (384 U.S. 346, 475, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1628, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 726) held that "volunteered statements of any kind" are not barred by the Fifth Amendment and that their admissibility is not affected by that case.”
Establishes the legal standard that volunteered statements are admissible regardless of Miranda protections
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice responded to a call and found Anderson and a juvenile in the front seat of a locked automobile with a broken left window. Anderson was holding …
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 Fifth Amendment Self-Incrimination Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was informed against, tried before the court and found and adjudged guilty of breaking and entering an automobile and of petit larceny. On the former offense he was sentenced to imprisonment for five years and on the latter offense was sentenced to the time previously served.
The question presented on appeal is whether error was committed by the court in receiving in evidence an incriminating statement of the defendant made to the police following his arrest.
The record discloses that upon responding to a call a police officer came upon the defendant and a juvenile in the front seat of an automobile. The window on the left side of the car had been broken. The defendant was holding a car radio and the other person was holding a screwdriver and wrench. The owner of the car arrived at the scene and informed the officer that the car had been locked. The officer asked the defendant and the juvenile their names and then informed them they were under arrest for breaking and entering an automobile. Thereupon the officer adequately warned the defendant of his constitutional rights against self-incrimination and to the aid of an attorney. Without further interrogation from the officer the defendant volunteered a statement to the effect that he had taken the radio and asked the officer whether he would be permitted to go if he put it back. The Miranda decision (384 U.S. 346, 475, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1628, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 726) held that “volunteered statements of any kind” are not barred by the Fifth Amendment and that their admissibility is not affected by that case. The statement involved in this instance was not the result of in-custodial interrogation but was a volunteered statement as above referred to.
For the reasons stated the trial court was eminently correct in allowing the defendant’s statement in evidence, and the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Adjmi v. State, 208 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…ct, sought to use the witness as an intermediary for purposes of his own. Under these circumstances, the admonitions against in custody interrogations contained in the cases relied upon are not applicable. [*861] Cf. Anderson v. State, Fla.App.1968, 207 So. 2d 518 [opinion filed March 5, 1968]. See also Montgomery v. State, Fla.1965, 176 So. 2d 331; State v. Outten, Fla.1968, 206 So. 2d 392; Biglow v. State, Fla.App.1967, 205 So. 2d 547. Appellant’s third point urges the trial judge committed error in failin…
-
Hill v. State, 223 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)…with this holding: Patrick v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So. 2d 62; Colebrook v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 205 So. 2d 675; Solino v. United States, 5 Cir. 1968, 387 F. 2d 354; Clark v. State, Fla.App.1968, 207 So. 2d 481; Anderson v. State, Fla.App.1968, 207 So. 2d 518; and Brisbon v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 201 So. 2d 832. The judgment of conviction appealed is therefore Affirmed. HOBSON, Acting C. J., and MANN, J., concur.…
-
State v. Sutterby, 34 Fla. Supp. 22 (Brevard Cty. Ct. 1969)…resulted from an attempt to secure counsel. All are suppressed and inadmissible at trial. However the court finds that Statement Number Four is a volunteered, gratuitous, spontaneous statement within the meaning of Anderson v. State, Fla. App. 1968, 207 So. 2d 518; Battles v. State, Fla. App. 1968, 208 So. 2d 150; Cameron v. State, Fla. App. 1968, 214 So. 2d 370; and Hawkins v. State, Fla. App. 1969, 217 So. 2d 582. Miranda does not apply to it and, subject to all other objections to its admissibility, its us…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)