JESSE O. ROBERTS, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 16-year-old minor's confession to rape was obtained after police interrogation and Miranda warnings, but suppressed by the trial court under Florida's juvenile custody statute. The Florida Supreme Court held that the mandatory language of F.S. Section 39.03(3) required the child be delivered to court without delay, and the District Court of Appeal erred in reversing the suppression order without addressing this statutory requirement.
The court held that the explicit mandatory language of F.S. Section 39.03(3) required that a child in custody be delivered to court without delay, and the failure to comply with this provision necessitates suppression of any confession obtained during the unlawful custody period. The District Court erred by not addressing this statutory requirement and by relying solely on the McNabb-Mallory rule.
[1] A juvenile taken into custody must be delivered to the court without delay for the purpose of investigation or any other purpose.
[2] Failure to deliver a juvenile to the court without delay, as required by statute, can be grounds for suppressing a confession obtained from the juvenile.
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 intelligence“The person taking and retaining a child in custody shall notify the parents or legal custodians of the child and the principal of the school in which said child is enrolled at the earliest practicable time, and shall, without delay for the purpose of investigation or any other purpose, deliver the child, by the most direct practicable route, to the court of the county or district where the child is taken into custody”
The controlling statutory language from F.S. Section 39.03(3) that mandates immediate delivery of a child to court without delay during investigation
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJesse O. Roberts, a 16-year-old minor, was interrogated by police about a rape allegation. After receiving Miranda warnings, he gave a statement to po…
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 Mcnabb-Mallory Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District, reported at 274 So. 2d 262 (1973). Our jurisdiction is based upon conflict between this case and In Re A.J.A., 248 So. 2d 290 (Fla.App.1971). Fla.Const., Art. V, Section 3(b) (3) (1973) F.S.A. Petitioner, a 16-year-old minor, was interrogated by police officials concerning a rape. After being given Miranda warnings the petitioner gave the police a statement that amounted to a confession of the crime. Following the recording of that statement, the defendant was taken before a juvenile court judge at which time he repudiated the statement and proclaimed his innocence.
Petitioner filed a motion to suppress the confession and that motion was ultimately granted based, in part, on the provisions of F.S. Section 39.03(3), F.S.A. The District Court of Appeal, First District, reversed that determination after an extensive interpretation of the McNabb-Mallory rule, failing, however, to discuss the applicability of F.S. Section 39.03(3), F.S.A. After a thorough review of the record in this cause, we have determined that the following language in F.S. Section 39.03 (3), F.S.A., is controlling:
“The person taking and retaining a child in custody shall notify the parents or legal custodians of the child and the principal of the school in which said child is enrolled at the earliest practicable time, and shall, without delay for the purpose of investigation or any other purpose, deliver the child, by the most direct practicable route, to the court of the county or district where the child is taken into custody . . ..” (Emphasis supplied.) This was the result reached in In Re A. J.A., supra, on facts which are similar to those presently under review. In view of the explicit mandatory language of F.S. Section 39.03(3), F.S.A., we feel we must adopt the rationale of the In Re AJ.A, holding as expressed at 248 So. 2d 690, at 692. Cf. Oliver v. State, 250 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 1971); see generally In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967).
Accordingly, the decision of the District Court is quashed and the cause remanded to the First District Court of Appeal with instructions to remand the same to the trial court for a new trial not inconsistent herewith.
CARLTON, C. J., and ERVIN, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur. ROBERTS, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Doerr v. State, 383 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 1980)…d is without weight, for any agency taking a child into custody would notify the parents regardless of any statutory mandate. The purpose of the mandate was to assure the voluntary nature of any confession made by the juvenile. In Roberts v. State, 285 So. 2d 385 (Fla.1973), this Court held that a confession should be suppressed if it had been secured in violation of the provisions of former section 39.03(3), Florida Statutes (1971), which reads as follows: The person taking and retaining a child in custody…1 / 2
-
Doerr v. State, 348 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)…ct exclusionary rule as urged by appellant could have the effect of voiding even those confessions of juveniles which are voluntarily given at the scene of the crime. In reaching this conclusion, we have not overlooked the case of Roberts v. State, 285 So. 2d 385 (Fla.1973), in which a confession was suppressed for the failure to comply with the italicized portion of Section 39.-03(3), Florida Statutes (1971), set forth below: “The person taking and retaining a child in custody shall notify the parents or l…
-
Rogert L. Dowst v. State, 336 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)…o make such call, or (2) the officer makes a good faith effort to so advise his parents, is inadmissible in evidence. See Arnold v. State, 265 So. 2d 64 (Fla.App. 3rd, 1972); In re: A. J. A., 248 So. 2d 690 (Fla.App. 3rd, 1971) and Roberts v. State, 285 So. 2d 385 (Fla.1973). The second point urged relates to alleged variances in allegation and proof of ownership of the money in question. When the evidence was presented, no objection was made as to alleged variance. The issue was not properly presented until…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1967)
- Oliver v. State, 250 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 1971)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Lorin Lee Furlong v. The Honorable Murray Goodman, 248 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- State v. Roberts, 274 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)
- In the Interest of A. J. A., 248 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)