JAMES FUSSELL, 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.
The court held that the appellant's oral confession was admissible and that sufficient evidence supported the felony-murder conviction.
[1] A confession is admissible when a defendant is advised of their Miranda rights and knowingly and intelligently waives them, even if the interrogation occurs within a pris…
[2] An oral confession is admissible if freely given in conformity with Miranda guidelines.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death, later reduced to life imprisonment. He appealed, challenging the admissibility …
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 Miranda V. Arizona cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to death in the Circuit Court in and for Leon County, Florida. Subsequently, under authority of Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33. L.Ed. 346 (1972), the Supreme Court of Florida in Anderson v. State, 267 So.2d 8 (1972), reduced the appellant’s sentence from death to life imprisonment.
The appellant has raised two points in his appeal. His first argument concerns an oral confession given by the appellant to Captain Terry of the Leon County Sheriff’s Department and William Camper of the State Attorney’s office while the appellant was an inmate at Sing-Sing Prison in Ossining, New York. After a careful examination of the record it appears that the appellant was advised of his right to counsel and that he knowingly and intelligently waived his privilege against self-incrimination and his right to retained or appointed counsel. Witnesses Terry and Camper testified that the incriminating statements which the appellant made at that time were freely given in conformity with the guidelines presented in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (1966). While a room within the walls of a state prison would not appear to provide the most ideal atmosphere within which to conduct an interrogation, there is nothing in the record to indicate that procedural safeguards were ignored or that the confession should have been suppressed.
Appellant’s second point concerns the competency and sufficiency of evidence admitted at trial to prove a felony-murder charge. In addition to the evidence discussed above, there was eye-witness identification and circumstantial evidence presented which identified the appellant as a participant in the felony-murder. This competent and substantial evidence tended to support a verdict of guilt. Accordingly, the conviction, as previously modified by reduction of sentence, is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Oliver, 854 F.2d 416 (11th Cir. 1988)…r they appeared in the contract itself. The Wisener court concluded that such a clause “is not contrary to public policy in Alabama.” Id. The Supreme Court of Alabama has since endorsed the Wisener rationale. United Security Life Ins. Co. v. Harden, 275 So. 2d 246, 153 So. 2d 246, 247 (1963). Because Alabama courts have read the forerunner statute to § 27-14-7 into the policy when the contract attempted to impose more stringent conditions on the insured than in the statute, but have refused to read the statut…
Authorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1972)
- Earnest Eugene Anderson v. State, 267 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1972)