STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES HARRIS, 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 State appeals a trial court's order suppressing a defendant's oral confession for being involuntary. The appellate court reversed and remanded because the trial judge applied an incorrect legal standard (clear and convincing evidence instead of preponderance of the evidence) in evaluating voluntariness.
The voluntariness of an admission or confession given during in-custody interrogation need only appear by a preponderance of the evidence, not by clear and convincing evidence. The trial judge applied an improper standard and the order suppressing the confession must be vacated and remanded for reconsideration under the correct standard.
[1] The voluntariness of a confession or admission given during in-custody interrogation must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
[2] An order suppressing a confession is vacated and the cause remanded for redetermination when the trial court applied an incorrect burden of proof to the issue of voluntar…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the voluntariness of the defendant's statement did not appear by clear and convincing evidence”
The trial judge's incorrect legal standard that prompted the reversal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames Harris was arrested on November 15, 1971, for sexual intercourse with his ten-year-old stepdaughter and placed in the Pahokee jail. Shortly afte…
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 Burden Of Proof For Confession Voluntariness cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an interlocutory appeal by the State from an order of the Circuit Court for Palm Beach County, Florida, suppressing on motion by defendant an oral confession made shortly after his arrest. The defendant was arrested on the night of 15 November 1971 and placed in the Pahokee jail on charges of having sexual intercourse with his ten-year-old stepdaughter. Shortly after his incarceration, he was questioned by a sergeant with the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Department and orally admitted the criminal act. The trial judge granted the motion and suppressed this admission on the ground that the same was involuntarily given.
There were three separate hearings on the motion to suppress. On the basis of the evidence presented at these hearings, the trial judge found that the oral admission was not voluntarily given. On appeal the State argues that the trial judge applied an improper criteria in evaluating the evidence as to voluntariness. The trial judge said in his order granting the motion to suppress that the voluntariness of the defendant’s statement did not appear by clear and convincing evidence. The State cites the case of Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477, 92 S.Ct. 619, 30 L.Ed.2d 618 (1972) for the proposition that the voluntariness of an admission or confession need only appear by a preponderance of the evidence.
We agree that this is the correct burden of proof under which the State operates *846when it attempts to introduce a confession or admission by the defendant given while under in-custody interrogation, and this standard should have been applied in ruling on the motion to suppress. See Johnston v. State, Fla.App.1972, 257 So.2d 94; but see State v. Graham, Fla.App.1970, 240 So.2d 486 for a contrary view. We cannot determine whether or not the trial judge would have reached the same conclusion had he applied the standard of Lego v. Twomey, supra. Consequently the order suppressing the confession is vacated, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for a redetermi-nation of the issue of voluntariness as it relates to the defendant’s statement. In redetermining the issue of voluntariness, the court should apply the preponderance of the evidence rule.'
Remanded with instructions.
REED, C. J., and OWEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wilson v. State, 304 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 1974)…doing. . . . ” While it is true that the State must show by a preponderance of the evidence that a confession was voluntary (Dodd v. State, Fla.App. 1970, 232 So. 2d 235; State v. Stone, Fla.App.1973, 279 So. 2d 351; State v. Harris, Fla.App. 1973, 276 So. 2d 845; Smith v. State, Fla.App. 1974, 288 So. 2d 522; and McDole v. State, Fla. 1973, 283 So. 2d 553), nevertheless, there are many instances in an evidentiary hearing where certain apparent impervious occasions arise. Wisdom and reasoning must then be ap…
-
Jackson v. State, 366 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 1978)…of a confession or statement is whether the statement was voluntarily and freely made after full Miranda warnings. Voluntariness need only appear by a preponderance of the evidence. See Wilson v. State, 304 So. 2d 119 (Fla.1974) and State v. Harris, 276 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). We think that the trial judge’s determination that these statements were freely and voluntarily made was correct. We have also reviewed the admission into evidence of two photographs of the victim and find these photographs rel…
-
Roth v. State, 359 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…ond a reasonable doubt, but by a mere preponderance of the evidence. Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477, 92 S.Ct. 619, 30 L.Ed.2d 618 (1972); Johnson v. State, 294 So. 2d 69 (Fla.1974); Johnston v. State, 257 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); State v. Harris, 276 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). In short, the record in the instant ease sufficiently sustains the trial court’s conclusions that the statements made during the pre-test interview were admissible at the defendant’s trial. See Hostzclaw v. State, 351 So. 2d 97…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1972)
- State v. Graham, 240 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)
- Johnston v. State, 257 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)