DENNIS JOSEPH DEMATTIA, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Voluntariness Of Confession cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant was found guilty of auto theft and grand larceny. He was sentenced to five years in the state penitentiary. On this appeal, he has claimed error upon the admission of his confession into evidence. Appellant urges that the confession was not shown to be voluntary because there was evidence that he had been taking drugs prior to his arrest.
Appellant relies upon Reddish v. State, Fla. 1964, 167 So. 2d 858, where the Supreme Court held that the totality of all the circumstances as to an appellant’s physical condition, in combination with the impact of narcotics, are to be considered in determining whether a confession is voluntary. In accordance with the admonition of the Supreme Court, we have considered the totality of the circumstances and find that the evidence clearly supports the trial court’s decision that the confession was voluntary. See Lindsey v. State, 66 Fla. 341, 63 So. 832 (1913); Reynolds v. State, Fla.App. 1969, 222 So. 2d 246.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Victoriano Melero v. State, 306 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…t the appellant intelligently and knowingly waived his constitutional rights is supported by substantial competent evidence. State v. Oyarzo, Fla. 1973, 274 So. 2d 519; Jetmore v. State, Fla.App.1973, 275 So. 2d 61; Demattia v. State, Fla.App. 1974, 292 So. 2d 390. We do not believe that the mere fact that the appellant was in a hospital being treated for his self-inflicted wounds, and that he testified that' he could not remember making any specific statements to a police officer either in the ambulance or…
-
Lawson v. State, 383 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…ther justified nor excused.2 Thus, a [*1115] complete explication of manslaughter requires definition of the acts statutorily excluded therefrom. Hedges, supra, at 826; followed in Clark v. State, 301 So. 2d 456 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); DeMattia v. State, 292 So. 2d 390 (Fla.3d DCA 1974). Appellee contends that a trial court may choose not to reinstruct on charges not specifically requested by the jury, citing Henry v. State, 359 So. 2d 864 (Fla.1978). Such a reading is overbroad. In that case, the petitioner was…
-
Clark v. State, 301 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…e jury’s request, on manslaughter, but failed to reread all the charges including those pertaining to justifiable and excusable homicide and self-defense. Appellant relies on Hedges v. State, Fla.1965, 172 So. 2d 824 and Ford v. State, Fla.App.1974, 292 So. 2d 390. See also, Stills v. State, Fla.App.1973, 272 So. 2d 174. The state distinguishes this case from the holdings in Hedges and Ford on the basis that in each of those cases the defendant was actually convicted of manslaughter, but in this case the jur…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Reddish v. State, 167 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 1964)
- Arch Lindsey v. State, 66 Fla. 341 (Fla. 1913)
- Reynolds v. State, 222 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)