GEORGE STEPHEN TRABER, 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, finding sufficient evidence and that statements made by the defendant prior to arrest were admissible. The court determined it was within the trial judge's purview to assess if constitutional warnings were required.
Yes, the evidence was sufficient. No, the pre-arrest statements were admissible because the trial judge could determine if the investigation had focused on the defendant at the time the statements were made, thus triggering the need for warnings.
“The record reveals substantial, competent evidence to support the judgment of conviction and, therefore, this point is not well taken.”
Establishes the court's finding regarding the sufficiency of the evidence.
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 a crime. He appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient and that statements he made before his arrest were imp…
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 Escobedo Warnings cases and more on FLexlaw
In this criminal appeal, the appellant raises two points. One goes to the sufficiency of the evidence. The record reveals substantial, competent evidence to support the judgment of conviction and, therefore, this point is not well taken. Crum v. State, Fla.App. 1965, 172 So.2d 24; Escobar v. State, Fla.App. 1966, 181 So.2d 193; Williams v. State, Fla.App. 1966, 187 So.2d 913; Richburg v. State, Fla.App.1967, 199 So.2d 488. The appellant also urges that the court erred in permitting certain evidence to be introduced in the nature of statements made by the defendant prior to his arrest, citing Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed. 2d 977; Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, as authority for reversal. We do not agree.
It was within the province of the trial judge to determine if the investigation had already focused on the defendant at the time the voluntary statements were made, in order to prevent the introduction of same without evidence of the required constitutional warnings. Not all statements are objectionable. United States v. Knight, E.D.Penn.1966, 261 F.Supp. 843; United States v. Spinney, D.C.Mass.1966, 264 F.Supp. 774; United States v. Kuntz, N.D.N.Y.1967, 265 F.Supp. 543; United States v. Gleason, S.D.N.Y.1967, 265 F.Supp. 880; United States v. Kubik, D.C.Del.1967, 266 F.Supp. 501.
Therefore, the judgment of conviction and sentence be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Traber v. State, 219 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 1968)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 212 So. 2d 676.…
Authorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1964)
- Crum v. State, 172 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Morena Williams v. State, 187 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Escobar v. State, 181 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Richburg v. State, 199 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)