JOHN B. HOSKINS, 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 court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to suppress the appellant's oral statement or the evidence found during his search, nor in failing to give a specific jury instruction on confession weight.
Appellant was convicted of rape. He appealed, arguing his arrest was illegal, his oral statement and evidence found during a search should have been s…
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 Rape cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant seeks reversal of his conviction and sentence after a jury verdict, for the crime of rape.
He claims reversible error was committed by the trial court in not suppressing an oral statement made after his arrest to a police officer. We find no error in this regard. See Narro v. United States, 370 F.2d 329 (5th Cir.1966).
He further argues that his arrest was illegal and that the trial court should have suppressed from evidence a beige hose stocking found on him when he was searched.
The record shows that the officer initially informed the appellant that the arrest was “for prowling”. The record reflects there was probable cause for an arrest of the appellant herein and an improper label will not make an arrest illegal which was based on probable cause. Chippas v. State, Fla.App. 1965, 180 So.2d 355; Ralph v. Pepersack, 335 F.2d 128 (4th Cir. 1964); Bell v. United States, 102 U.S. App.D.C. 383, 254 F.2d 82 (1958).
The appellant also seeks reversal because the trial court failed to give an instruction to the jury of the weight to be given by it to the appellant’s confession. He did not seek such an instruction at trial and, therefore, reversible error was not committed in this regard, Fla.Stat. § 918.10(4), F.S.A. See also Hamilton v. State, Fla.App.1963, 152 So.2d 793.
Error is claimed in that the trial judge did not explicitly determine whether the statement of the defendant was voluntarily given before admitting it into evidence. The voluntariness of the confession was properly determined. See Sims v. State of Georgia, 385 U.S. 538, 87 S.Ct. 639, 17 L.Ed.2d 593 (1967); Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964); Brown v. State, Fla.App.1966, 181 So.2d 578; Rollins v. State, Fla.App. 1965, 179 So.2d 377.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Chaney v. State, 237 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)…rrant under the pertinent statute. Bell v. United States, 1957, 102 U.S. App.D.C. 383, 254 F. 2d 82, 86 (cert. den. 358 U.S. 885, 79 S.Ct. 126, 3 L.Ed.2d 113); Simms v. State, 1968, 4 Md.App. 160, 242 A. 2d 185, 189; Hoskins v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 208 So. 2d 145. Any other rule would be an unjustified preference of form over substance. It is a well established principle in Florida that an arrest is not complete until it has been communicated to the person to be arrested. The arrest of Chaney, therefore, di…
-
Blanding v. State, 446 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…one as it was based on a probable cause showing that the defendant was selling illegal drugs on the street. An arrest based on probable cause is not rendered unlawful because the arresting officer attaches an improper label to it. Hoskins v. State, 208 So. 2d 145, 146 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968), aff'd sub nom., Hoskins v. Wainwright, 263 So. 2d 204 (Fla.1972); Chippas v. State, 180 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965), aff'd, 194 So. 2d 593 (Fla.1967). The defendant was observed by the arresting officer engaging in three…
-
Gibson v. State, 368 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…oin; it was therefore lawfully effected notwithstanding the fact that the officer formally stated that he was arresting Gibson for loitering and prowling, rather than possession. Maddox v. State, 236 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970); Hoskins v. State, 208 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968), cert. denied, 214 So. 2d 622 (Fla.1968). Hence, the court also rightly refused to suppress additional heroin and a quantity of cocaine which was discovered upon a search of the defendant’s person after and incident to the thus-la…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 (U.S. 1964)
- Sims v. Georgia, 385 U.S. 538 (U.S. 1967)
- Rhinelda M. Bell v. United States, 254 F.2d 82 (D.C. Cir. 1958)
- Ralph v. Pepersack, 335 F.2d 128 (4th Cir. 1964)
- Hamilton v. State, 152 So. 2d 793 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Brown v. State, 181 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)
- Narro v. United States, 370 F.2d 329 (5th Cir. 1966)
- Chippas v. State, 180 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Bell v. State, 179 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)