FRANK LEE COOK AND HOLLIS SELLERS, APPELLANTS,
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 reviews whether a defendant's constitutional rights were violated by the admission of testimony from arresting officers regarding statements made by the defendants. The court found no violation because the statements were made voluntarily.
No, the constitutional rights of the appellants were not violated because the statement made by Mr. Sellers was voluntary, and therefore admissible.
“The statement was made voluntarily; therefore, no violation of the appellants' constitutional rights resulted.”
Establishes the court's reasoning for admitting the statement and finding no constitutional violation.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants Frank Lee Cook and Hollis Sellers were arrested. During their arrest, Officer Tate testified he did not personally advise them of their 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
The only substantial question presented on this appeal is the appellants’ contention that their constitutional rights were violated by the admission of the following testimony by the arresting officers:
[Cross-examination of Officer Tate]
“Q Did you advise them of their right as they were placed under arrest?
A I myself personally?
Q Yes.
A No, I did not.”
* * * * *
[Direct-examination of Detective Sa-vaggi]
“A Yes, they were handcuffed in the parking lot, and people were coming, and so to avoid a scene we were taking both into the store room. I was leading Mr. Cook and Mr. Sellers, which were only a couple of feet in front of me, and Officer Tate was behind me, and Detective Zeresk was standing on the scene.
Q Was anything said by Sellers at that time and point?
A Mr. Sellers said that he didn’t know why he did a crazy thing like this.
Mr. Quick: To which we will object, your Honor * * *
The Court: Overruled * * * ”
*469The statement was made voluntarily; therefore, no violation of the appellants’ constitutional rights resulted. See Biglow v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 2Ó5 So.2d 547.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dempsey v. State, 238 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…nteered statements of any kind are not barred by the Fifth Amendment and their admissibility is not affected by our holding today.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 478, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1629, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 726. Compare Cook v. State, Fla.App.1969, 219 So. 2d 468. Appellant’s second point is directed to the admission into evidence of the statement made to Lieutenant Shepherd and to another statement made to another witness in each of which the appellant referred to the perpetration of a prior crime. It is u…