JAMES E. GUSTAFSON, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
JAMES E. GUSTAFSON, PETITIONER,
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
287 So. 2d 69
Florida Supreme Court (1973)
Negative Treatment
Cited by 8 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
The petition for writ of certiorari directed to the 4th District’s opinion reported at 273 So. 2d 86 (1973), reflected apparent jurisdiction in this Court. We issued the writ and have heard argument of the parties. Upon further consideration of the matter we have determined that the cited decisions present no direct conflict as required by Article V, Section 3(b)(3) (1973), Florida Constitution, F.S.A. Therefore, the writ must be and is hereby
Discharged.
It is so ordered.
CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ADKINS, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., concur. ERVIN and McCAIN, JJ., dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thompson v. State, 328 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1976)…f the Miranda warnings, in' the interim between statements, cannot suffice to erase the taint. Brown v. Illinois, supra. Contra, State v. Oyarzo, 274 So. 2d 519 (Fla.1973); Gustafson v. State, 273 So. 2d 86 (Fla.App. 4th Dist. 1973) cert. discharged 287 So. 2d 69 (Fla.1973). If the accused consults with counsel, however, and gives the later statement in counsel’s presence, as happened here, the later statement should ordinarily be admissible, unless, for example, defense counsel justifiably relied on factual…
-
State v. McMANUS, 404 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…cts, where the same are not proscribed by law, and the defendant is not prejudiced. Hoffman v. State, 397 So. 2d 288 (Fla.1981); State v. Buffa, 347 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Johnson v. State, 339 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1976); Cain v. State, 287 So. 2d 69 (Fla.1973); Arnold v. State, 83 So. 2d 105 (Fla.1955). We reverse the order granting the motion to suppress and remand for further proceedings. REVERSED and REMANDED. BERANEK, J., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.…
-
State v. Moreno-Gonzalez, 18 So. 3d 1180 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…arrant was served by an officer not named in the warrant, in violation of section 933.08, Florida Statutes).2 The strict construction rule is subject to the qualification that suppression is not required for a purely technical error. Cain v. State, 287 So. 2d 69, 70 (Fla.1973). [*1187] In Cain the judge failed to fill in the date that he signed the warrant. The Court concluded that suppression was not required because the error “was a mere technicality and not prejudicial.” Id. The question, then, is wheth…
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
- Fatolitis v. Fatolitis, 273 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
- Gustafson v. State, 273 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)