WALTER DANIELS, APPELLANT,

v.

THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Hawthorne v. State, 377 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
  …wered some questions or volunteered some statements on his own does not deprive him of the right to refrain from answering any further inquiries until he has consulted with an attorney and thereafter consents to be questioned.” In State v. Prosser, 235 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970), this Court applied the Miranda Rule to hold that where an accused, when asked if he wanted a lawyer made statements such as: “Well, I probably need one,” right to counsel was claimed, and the confession thereafter obtained witho…
• State v. Paschal, 358 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
  …nd statements were properly admissible since they were made after Miranda warnings had been given and a waiver of those rights had been shown. We agree that the taped statements were inadmissible under the principles enunciated in State v. Prosser, 235 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 1 DCA 1970), and Jones v. State, 346 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 2 DCA 1977). That portion of the order suppressing the taped statement is, therefore, AFFIRMED. The order is otherwise REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent herewith. BO…
• Breedlove v. State, 364 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
  …en at the appellant’s home was admissible because it was not the product of custodial interrogation or a result of coercion. It is settled that continued readings of Miranda rights to the accused may constitute undue harassment. In State v. Prosser, 235 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970), the court affirmed the granting of a motion to suppress statements made to the police when evidence showed defendant wished to remain silent or consult with an attorney. Quoting Miranda with approval the court stated: “interroga…

Authorities Cited

• Davis v. State, 44 Fla. 32 (Fla. 1902)
• Pearsall v. State, 215 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)
• Daniels v. State, 217 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)