JOHN HENRY FIELDS, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed a juvenile's robbery conviction because officers failed to immediately notify his parents during a four-hour custodial interrogation, rendering his confessions inadmissible under Fla. Stat. § 39.03(3)(a).
A juvenile's confessions obtained during custodial interrogation are inadmissible when officers fail to immediately notify the juvenile's parents as required by Fla. Stat. § 39.03(3)(a).
[1] A juvenile's confessions obtained during custodial interrogation are rendered inadmissible by officers' failure to comply with the statutory requirement to immediately no…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA juvenile was taken downtown for questioning regarding a robbery charge and detained for approximately four hours before being delivered to a juvenil…
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 Juvenile Detention cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
On this appeal from a judgment of conviction on a charge of robbery, to which the appellant, a juvenile offender, pleaded nolo contendere while reserving the right to appeal, we are concerned with the admissibility in evidence of confessions and admissions obtained, after Miranda warnings were given, during appellant’s detention for approximately four hours from the time he was taken downtown for “questioning,” until his ultimate delivery to the intake officer of a juvenile detention center. During this time no attempt was made to notify the appellant’s parents.
Section 39.03(3)(a), Fla.Stat., relating to juveniles, requires that “[i]f the person taking the child into custody determines . that the child should be detained . he shall immediately notify the parents . . . and shall, without unreasonable delay, deliver the child to the appropriate intake officer . . . .” The interrogating officers in the present case were thus charged with an affirmative duty to immediately notify the appellant’s parents. The appellant’s confessions and admissions are rendered inadmissible by the officers’ failure to comply with § 39.03(3)(a), Fla. Stat., and the trial judge should have granted the appellant’s motion to suppress such confessions and admissions. J. E. S. v. State, 366 So. 2d 538 (1 DCA 1979); Dowst v. State, 336 So. 2d 375 (1 DCA 1976); Weatherspoon v. State, 328 So. 2d 875 (1 DCA 1976). Contra, Doerr v. State, 348 So. 2d 938 (2 DCA 1977).
Accordingly, the judgment and sentence are reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
LARRY G. SMITH, Acting C. J., and SHAW and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fields v. State, 402 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…are reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings. SHAW, J., concurs. LARRY G. SMITH, J., specially concurs with opinion. . After remand from the Supreme Court, State v. Fields, 394 So. 2d 1015 (Fla.1981), reversing Fields v. State, 377 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). . Appellant was told that he had been identified by a confidential informant and that his fingerprints had been found at the scene of the robbery. The record shows that neither statement was true.…
-
State v. Fields, 394 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 1981)…PER CURIAM. Certiorari having been granted on the basis of an express and direct conflict between the district court’s decision below, Fields v. State, 377 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), and our recent decision in Doerr v. State, 383 So. 2d 905 (Fla.1980), we quash the decision below and remand for further proceedings in light of our Doerr decision. It is so ordered. OVERTON, ENGLAND, ALDERMAN and McDONALD,…
Authorities Cited
- Doerr v. State, 348 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Rogert L. Dowst v. State, 336 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Weatherspoon v. State, 328 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- J. E. S. v. State, 366 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)