RALPH CRAIG, 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.
Ralph Craig was convicted of second-degree murder after a jury trial, but the Florida appellate court reversed his conviction because his in-custody statement was admitted into evidence in violation of Miranda rights. The court found that the pre-interrogation warnings were inadequate and that Craig's ambiguous statement about wanting an attorney required either consultation or an unequivocal waiver before further questioning.
The court held that the introduction of the statement was erroneous on two independent grounds: first, the pre-interrogation warnings failed to adequately inform Craig of his right to consult with an attorney and have one present during interrogation; and second, even assuming adequate warnings, the state should have ceased questioning and either allowed Craig to consult with an attorney or obtained a clear and unequivocal waiver before continuing interrogation after Craig's ambiguous statement about wanting counsel.
“We have examined the record of the preinterrogation warnings given the defendant and conclude that they were inadequate to inform the defendant that he had a right to consult with an attorney prior to the interrogation and to have the attorney present during the interrogation.”
Establishes the first ground for reversal: the Miranda warnings given were insufficient.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRalph Craig was charged with first-degree murder in the shooting death of Aughtman E. Cruce on November 18, 1966, in Indian River County, Florida. A j…
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 defendant, Ralph Craig, was charged by an indictment with first degree murder by shooting one Aughtman E. Cruce to death on 18 November 1966 in Indian River County, Florida. The defendant’s trial by jury began on 3 April 1967 and concluded on 6 April 1967 when the jury returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty of second degree murder.
The defendant’s appeal presents to this court seven points for review. We have reviewed the treatment of these points in the briefs and studied the entire record. We conclude that all of these points except Point IV are without merit.
During the trial a lengthy statement by the defendant was admitted in evidence as State’s Exhibit 28. Under Point IV of his brief, the defendant argues that the introduction of the statement violated his right to immunity from self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and explicated in Miranda v. Arizona, 1966, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1603, 16 L.Ed.2d 694. This statement was in the form of a court reporter’s transcript of an in custody in*20terrogation of the defendant by an assistant state’s attorney. The transcript was dated 20 November 1966. It was not signed by the defendant and the evidence does not indicate that it was in any other manner adopted by him.
The Miranda case expands the predicate which must be laid1 before an in custody statement taken from the defendant by investigating officers may be introduced in evidence. This predicate, under the Miranda decision, must include a showing that the defendant was advised prior to the interrogation of his right to consult with an attorney and to have the attorney with him during the interrogation. The state has the burden of proving that the required advice was given. Woods v. State, Fla.App.1968, 211 So.2d 248; Fendley v. United States, 5 Cir. 1967, 384 F.2d 923.
We have examined the record of the preinterrogation warnings given the defendant and conclude that they were inadequate to inform the defendant that he had a right to consult with an attorney prior to the interrogation and to have the attorney present during the interrogation. Compare Woods v. State and Fendley v. United States, supra. See also Atwell v. United States, 5 Cir. 1968, 398 F.2d 507, 510.
There is a further reason why the introduction of the statement was erroneous, even if it might be assumed that the warning given to the defendant was adequate. During the preliminary questioning of the defendant, the defendant stated that “in a way” he would like to have an attorney, but concluded that he did not “see how it can help me.” Immediately thereafter, without expressly waiving his right to an attorney, the defendant proceeded to answer the questions put to him by the assistant state’s attorney. At this point the defendant should have been given an opportunity to consult with an attorney or a clear and unequivocal waiver should have been obtained from him.2
For the foregoing reasons the judgment and sentence entered pursuant to the jury verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree are reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for a new trial.
McCAIN, J., concurs.
CROSS, J., concurs in conclusion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Craig, 237 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 1970)…ADKINS, Justice. This cause is before the Court for review on conflict certiorari of the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, reported in Craig v. State, 216 So. 2d 19. The defendant was charged by an indictment with murder in the first degree and the jury returned a verdict finding him guilty of murder in the second degrée. During the trial a statement made by the defendant was admitted into evidence. The Distri…
-
James v. State, 223 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)…ning given to the defendant in the present case was incomplete in that it did not advise the defendant that he was entitled to an attorney prior to and during interrogation. Woods v. State, Fla.App.1968, 211 So. 2d 248; Craig v. State, Fla.App.1968, 216 So. 2d 19; and Fendley v. United States, 5 Cir.1967, 384 F. 2d 923. The warning was also inadequate in that it failed to advise the defendant that he had the right to a court appointed attorney if he desired an attorney and could not afford one. The state co…
-
Wakeman v. State, 237 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)…at he wishes to consult with an attorney there can be no questioning.” As soon as the officers became aware of defendant’s desire to have an attorney present, no questioning should have transpired until he arrived. In Craig v. State, Fla.App.1968, 216 So. 2d 19, we found that a defendant who, during preliminary questioning, stated that “in a way” he would like to have had an attorney but concluded that he did not “see how it can help me”, should have been given an opportunity to consult with one or a clear…
Previewing 3 of 4 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)
- Williams v. State, 188 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Fendley v. United States, 384 F.2d 923 (5th Cir. 1967)
- Woods v. State, 211 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Atwell v. United States, 398 F.2d 507 (5th Cir. 1968)