DONALD EMETT LANGLOIS, 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.
Donald Emett Langlois appeals his murder conviction, claiming the trial court erred in admitting his confession to police. The appellate court affirms the conviction after finding the confession was given freely and voluntarily with no constitutional violations.
The trial court properly admitted the confession into evidence, as it was given freely and voluntarily without violation of any constitutional rights. The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
“The only point urged here and argued before this Court in behalf of Langlois as to why the judgment appealed should be reversed is that the trial Court erred in admitting into evidence the confession made by Langlois to investigating officers on the day after the shooting.”
Identifies the sole issue on appeal—the admissibility of the confession
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLanglois was tried for second-degree murder in the shooting death of Valerie Jean Winegarner on June 29, 1967, in Hillsborough County. The day after t…
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 Admissibility Of Confessions cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant Donald Emett Langlois appeals to this Court from a judgment of conviction and sentence to life imprisonment entered against him consequent upon a verdict of guilty being returned by a jury after trial upon information charging him with murder in the second degree in the shooting to death of one Valerie Jean Winegarner in Hillsborough County on June 29, 1967.
The only point urged here and argued before this Court in behalf of Langlois as to why the judgment appealed should be reversed is that the trial Court erred in admitting into evidence the confession made by Langlois to investigating officers on the day after the shooting. It seems to be conceded by counsel for Langlois that he did consent to giving the confession in the presence of a preacher, one Reverend Bradshaw, and investigating officer Wood. Reverend Bradshaw had been sent to the jail to confer and advise with Langlois by the latter’s employer, which came about at Langlois’ express request to his employer.
The trial Judge held an extensive hearing in the absence of the jury for purpose of determining the legal adrhissibility of the confession before it was given in evidence. The facts surrounding the giving of the confession were gone into most fully. Lan-glois himself testified, as did the investigating officer. The trial Court found the confession to have been given freely and voluntarily and that no constitutional right of Langlois was violated in the process.
It would serve no good purpose, nor would it substantially contribute to the body of the law, to discuss at length the facets of testimony adduced at the collateral hearing as to admissibility. Suffice to say that we have carefully examined the *429record and find ample support in the testimony to sustain the action of the trial Judge in admitting the confession. There was therefore no error in such ruling.
That being the only point raised upon behalf of appellant Langlois in this Court, and it having been determined adversely to him, the judgment of conviction appealed from is thereupon—
Affirmed.
LILES, Acting C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Burwick v. State, 254 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…oerced is against the weight of the evidence before him. We find no error in the submission of the confession and the circumstances under which it was given to the jury as a part of the evidence in this case. Compare Langlois v. State, Fla.App.1969, 226 So. 2d 428; Reynolds v. State, Fla.App.1969, 222 So. 2d 246; Walker v. State, Fla.App.1969, 219 So. 2d 707. Affirmed. . F.S. § 806.02 F.S.A., “Arson, second degree Any person who willfully and maliciously sets fire to, burns or causes to be burned, or who a…
-
Langlois v. Louie L. Wainwright, 445 F.2d 836 (5th Cir. 1971)…e affirm. Appellant, represented by a public defender, was convicted upon trial by jury of second degree murder. He was sentenced on July 31, 1968, to life imprisonment. The conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. Langlois v. State, Fla.App.1969, 226 So. 2d 428. Appellant filed a motion to vacate sentence in the state trial court pursuant to Rule 1.850, Fla.R.Crim.P., 33 F.S.A., alleging that he was denied counsel while being questioned, which resulted in his giving a coerced confession. The trial court de…