NOBLE W. RAY, 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.
This case upholds the criminal conviction of a 65-year-old man accused of stabbing another man, holding that his custodial statement was voluntary and admissible under Miranda v. Arizona because police properly read him his rights, obtained his signed waiver, and recorded the entire process.
Ray's statement was voluntary and admissible because police faithfully followed the Miranda procedure by reading him his rights, obtaining his signed waiver, and preserving the entire proceeding by recording. The question of self-defense was properly submitted to the jury rather than decided as a matter of law.
“Miranda v. Arizona, 348 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed.2d 694, 10 A.L.R.3d 974 (1966), is followed faithfully in this commendable procedure. We hold that Ray's statement was voluntary and admissible.”
The court's holding that the police department's adherence to Miranda requirements rendered Ray's custodial statement admissible.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNoble W. Ray, a 65-year-old Negro citrus grove worker, was accused of stabbing another man. Police in Haines City read Ray a detailed statement of rig…
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 Voluntary Statements cases and more on FLexlaw
Two groups will find this case instructive. The first includes those who assume that the police in a small Southern town will not respect the civil rights of a 65-year old Negro citrus grove worker accused of stabbing another man. The second includes those who argue that the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States declaring the extent of an American’s constitutional rights, which this Court is sworn to protect, impose an unreasonable burden on law enforcement officers.
In this case the police department of Haines City followed the procedure of reading to the accused person in custody the following:
“Before we ask you any questions, you must understand your rights.
“You have the right to remain silent.
“Anything you say can be used against you in court.
“You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions and to have him with you during questioning if you wish.
“If you cannot afford a lawyer one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish.
“If you decide to answer questions now without a lawyer present, you will still have the right to stop answering at any time. You also have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to a lawyer.
“A lawyer will also be provided for you now, if you wish, by the public defender, Lee R. Horton, Jr. 9 Alcoma Arc, Lake Wales, Florida, whom you may call at 676-5314.
“Waiver of rights. I have read this statement of my rights, and I understand what my rights are. I am willing to make a statement and answer questions. I do not want a lawyer at this time. I understand and know what I am doing. No promises or threats have been made to me and no pressure or coercion of any kind has been used against me.”
Acknowledgment by Ray that his rights were thus explained to him was signed by him in the presence of a witness. The reading to him of his rights and the statement he thereafter made is preserved for review by the trial and appellate courts on the original disc recorded at the time and by a typewritten transcript. Miranda v. Arizona, 348 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed.2d 694, 10 A.L.R.3d 974 (1966), is followed faithfully in this commendable procedure. We hold that Ray’s statement was voluntary and admissible.
Appellant’s counsel argues that the testimony conclusively proves self-defense, but the record shows that it was a question properly submitted to the jury.
Affirmed.
HOBSON, Acting C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Graham, 240 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)…econsideration of the motion to suppress as the trial judge may be advised in the light of this opinion. Reversed and remanded. HOBSON, C. J., and PIERCE, J., concur. . Wyzanski, The New Meaning of Justice 5 (1966). . Ray v. State, Fla.App.1969, 219 So. 2d 64. . “Another disadvantage to the defendant under the Court’s new rule is the failure to say anything about the burden of proving voluntariness. The New York rule does now and apparently always has put on the State the burden of convincing the jury b…
Authorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)