HERSHEL RAY CAMERON, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Hershel Ray Cameron appeals his conviction for attempted breaking and entering, challenging the admissibility of statements he made to arresting officers immediately after his arrest. The court affirms, holding that Miranda warnings were not required because Cameron was never interrogated and his statements were gratuitous and spontaneous.
The court held that Cameron's statements were properly admitted because Miranda warnings were not required under the circumstances. Miranda protections do not apply when a defendant makes gratuitous, spontaneous statements without interrogation or custodial questioning, particularly when the statements are an impulsive effort to exculpate others rather than a product of police interrogation.
“Cameron gratuitously pleaded with the officers to — 'Just let the woman and the rest of them go. I pulled in here, needed a drink, I got the shakes so bad, I was breaking in the store'”
Establishes that Cameron made spontaneous statements without interrogation, which are the subject of the Miranda challenge.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn January 14, 1968, police officers observed four people at a liquor store in the early morning hours. Two men were outside the front door, a woman 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 Attempted Breaking And Entering cases and more on FLexlaw
This is a direct appeal by appellant Hershel Ray Cameron from a judgment of conviction after trial in a criminal case.
The main contention of error here on behalf of Cameron is the admissibility of a statement by him to the arresting officer immediately after his arrest.
Information was filed in the Highlands County Circuit Court on February 1, 1968, charging Cameron, together with three other named persons, with attempted breaking and entering. Upon trial before the Court without a jury, the three others were acquitted but Cameron was convicted.
The testimony established that on January 14, 1968, early in the morning before daylight, two Avon Park police officers, while on patrol duty on Highway 27, observed two men just outside the front door of a liquor store, with a station wagon parked in front containing a woman in the front seat and a man in the rear seat. They could also see pruning shears protruding from the front door of the building. While no entry had been made into the building, bqth the front door and a side door of the building had been imminently damaged. All four persons were arrested, taken to the County Jail, and were thereafter prosecuted upon the same information, with the result aforesaid.
At the trial one of the officers testified that immediately after the arrest, and while the officers were waiting, for the sheriff’s office to send help, Cameron gratuitously pleaded with the officers to — “Just let the woman and the rest of them go. I pulled in here, needed a drink, I got the shakes so bad, I was breaking in the store”; and immediately thereafter again urged the officers: “Let the rest go. I was the one breaking in. They didn’t have anything to do with it”. These statements were made gratuitously, without questioning or interrogation by the officers, right after they had been arrested at the scene of the attempted burglary, and before they had left the premises. The officers testified the statements were voluntarily made, which Cameron did not deny. In fact, he did not even deny making the statements. And no objection was made to the introduction of the statements in evidence at the trial.
Counsel for Cameron argue here for the first time that Cameron’s statements aforesaid violated the rule of Miranda (Miranda *371v. State of Ariz., 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694), in that the officers did not first advise him he had the right to remain silent and also to have a lawyer present during his interrogation.
But Cameron was not protected by Miranda under the facts here for several reasons, it only being necessary to point out one or two of such reasons. One is he was never interrogated by the officers: what he said was, without denial, gratuitous and spontaneous. Also, the statements were not produced by “custodial interrogation”, but rather was an impulsive effort on the part of Cameron to exculpate the other three with him. Furthermore, the introduction of the statements was never objected to.
Other points relied upon are patently without merit, so the judgment appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
ALLEN, Acting C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stevens v. State, 251 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)…. The judgment of conviction is affirmed. SPECTOR, C. J., and MASON, ERNEST E., Associate Judge, concur. . Pettyjohn v. United States (1969), 136 U.S.App.D.C. 69, 419 F. 2d 651. . Paramore v. State, 229 So. 2d 855 (Fla.1969). .Cameron v. State, 214 So. 2d 370 (Fla. DCA 2d 1968) ; Leacli v. State, 132 So. 2d 329 (Fla.1961) ; and Myrick v. State, 177 So. 2d 845 (Fla.DCA 1st 1965). . F.S. § 794.01, F.S.A. . Leach v. State, 132 So. 2d 329, 331 (Fla.1961) ; and Mardorff v. State, 143 Fla. 64, 196 So. 625 (1…
-
Pepitone v. State, 846 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…not support an attempt instruction. Normally, an attempted burglary involves a person who attempts, but fails, to gain entrance to a dwelling, structure, or conveyance. See, e.g., Smith v. State, 588 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Cameron v. State, 214 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968); Davis v. State, 730 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). It may be that Mr. Pepitone attempted unsuccessfully to steal something from the study, but it is undisputed that he successfully entered the condominium unit. If he did so with…
-
Myers v. State, 256 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…at 726. We hold that where the state makes every reasonable effort to inform a defendant of his rights and the defendant refuses to listen that it is not necessary for the state to hold him down and read them to him. Cameron v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 214 So. 2d 370; Ballay v. People, 160 Colo. 309, 419 P. 2d 446 (1966). We think that appellant’s claim that his statements were inadmissible because of the absence of Miranda warnings is unavailing for another reason. The record reveals that appellant’s statement…
Previewing 3 of 9 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)