ROBERT ARD, 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.
A confession obtained prior to the Miranda decision must comply with Miranda requirements if it is offered as evidence at a trial commenced subsequent to the Miranda decision.
Defendant was convicted of second-degree murder based in part on a confession admitted into evidence over objection. The confession was obtained befor…
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
Defendant was convicted of second degree murder and duly sentenced. He appeals. We reverse.
The warning requirements of Miranda v. State of Arizona, 1966, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, are well known. Essentially we determine here if a confession made prior to the Miranda decision which is offered in evidence at a trial held subsequent to Miranda must meet the Miranda requirements in order to be admissible. The confession in question was received in evidence over objection despite the fact that it was not in compliance with Miranda. This was error.
Although it was impossible at the time of the arrest for the police officers to know what type of warning was required on their part, the Miranda standards are applicable to all confessions which are sought to be introduced if the trial is commenced subsequent to the Miranda decision. Johnson v. State of New Jersey, 1966, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed. 2d 882; Glover v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 203 So.2d 676. The rationale of this application of the Miranda requirements is that as of the date of the Miranda decision, the authorities were put on fair notice of the *440requirements for valid confessions and that they should see that any confession introduced subsequent to Miranda complies with it.
Notwithstanding- the fact that there is substantial evidence of the defendant’s guilt in the record, even without the inadmissible confession, such admission constitutes fundamental error and requires reversal. Blackburn v. Alabama, 1960, 361 U.S. 199, 80 S.Ct. 274, 4 L.Ed.2d 242; Reddish v. State, Fla.1964, 167 So.2d 858; Abram v. State, Fla.App.1968, 216 So.2d 498; Jones v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 200 So. 2d 574.
The other points raised by defendant have been considered and are deemed to be without merit.
The judgment appealed is reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
McCAIN and REED, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Foster v. State, 266 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…whether the oral statements and reenactment of the crime should have been permitted into evidence such introduction would be subject to the principles enunciated in Miranda. Glover v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So. 2d 676; Ard v. State, Fla.App.1970, 233 So. 2d 439; Johnson v. State of New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882. However, in this cause, it is apparent that the-appellant voluntarily announced over the international marine radio that he had killed two people; he voluntarily announced…
-
State v. ARD, 238 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 1970)…Certiorari denied. 233 So. 2d 439. ERVIN, C. J., and DREW, THORNAL and BOYD, JJ., concur. ROBERTS, CARLTON and ADKINS, JJ., dissent.…
Authorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719 (U.S. 1966)
- Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U.S. 199 (U.S. 1960)
- Jones v. State, 200 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Reddish v. State, 167 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 1964)
- Elder Emmitt Glover v. State, 203 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)
- Abram v. State, 216 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)