THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ODES NEAL HAMILTON AND RAYMOND AUGUSTA BLACK, APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Discretion Of The Court cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal by the state from a pretrial order in a criminal prosecution in the circuit court, as authorized by § 924.07 (8) Fla.Stat., F.S.A.1969. The challenged order granted defendants’ motion for severance, opposed by the state, which had elected to try jointly the defendants who were charged by indictment with the crime of murder in the first degree. The defendants, in the presence of each other, had made statements which were self-incriminating and which implicated the other. We find no error in that ruling of the trial court. It represented a matter resting in the discretion of the court (Jackman v. State, Fla.App.1962, 140 So.2d 627; Sylvia v. State, Fla.App.1968, 210 So.2d 286), and *510in the circumstances presented the order of severance was proper. See Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
W. B. and G. B. F. v. State, 356 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…nfession which implicates the defendant in a form not subject to cross-examination deprives the defendant of his right to confront and cross-examine the witness against him. This same rule has been applied in Florida case law. See State v. Hamilton, 240 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). Respondent G. B. F. We cannot agree with G. B. F.’s contention that he was entitled to Miranda warnings. The decision of the United States Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966),…
-
State v. Smith, 254 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)…awford, 245 So. 2d 893 (Fla.DCA 1st, 1971), cert. now pending in Supreme Court of Florida; in which the interlocutory appeal from a pretrial order was not properly considered as petition for common law writ of certiorari. See also State v. Hamilton, 240 So. 2d 509 (Fla.DCA 3d, 1970). . State v. Lampp, 155 So. 2d 10 (Fla.DCA 2d, 1963). . Rule 1.220. Discovery, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 33 F.S.A.…
-
Fungone v. State, 391 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…nd held that the admission of the confession implicating the defendant in a form not subject to cross-examination had the effect of depriving defendant of his right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him. See also State v. Hamilton, 240 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). Similarly, we conclude that the admission of this improper evidence requires that the conviction and sentence below be vacated and the case remanded for a new trial. Under these circumstances, we feel it necessary to also commen…
Authorities Cited
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1968)
- Jackman v. State, 140 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Sylvia v. State, 210 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)