JOSEPH BUNCH, 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.
Defendant Bunch appealed his conviction claiming the trial court failed to explicitly state in its ruling that his confession was voluntary. The court affirmed, holding that where there is no evidence or contention of coercion and the record clearly shows the trial court determined the confession was voluntary, explicit findings, while better practice, are not required.
In the absence of any evidence or contention of coercion, when the total record clearly indicates the trial court determined the confession was voluntary, explicit written findings of voluntariness, while better practice, are not required for admission of the confession.
[1] A trial court's ruling on the admissibility of a confession is sufficient when the record, in the absence of any evidence or contention of coercion, clearly indicates the…
[2] A specific finding of voluntariness by the trial court is necessary to ensure the court has properly met its requirements regarding confessions.
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“A specific finding of voluntariness is necessary to insure that a judge has properly met this requirement.”
Appellant's cited standard from McDole v. State for requiring explicit voluntariness findings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDeputy Sheriff testified about defendant's confession after advising him of his Miranda rights. When asked if the defendant said he did not want to ta…
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 Admissibility Of Confessions cases and more on FLexlaw
JOHNSON, Judge.
This is an appeal from a final judgment and sentence after a jury verdict of guilty.
There is no contention that the appellant, the defendant below, was not guilty. The only question raised is that the trial court did not spell out with unmistakable clarity in its ruling on the admissibility of the confession of the defendant, that the same was voluntary. Counsel for the defendant had objected to the testimony of a Deputy Sheriff which included the confession. After the court inquired of the witness (Deputy Sheriff) if, after the deputy had advised him of his Miranda warnings, whether or not the defendant had told the deputy he did not want to talk to him anymore, and received from the witness a negative answer, the Court then ruled:
“The objections are overruled in their entirety except as to the testimony of this witness with respect to the polygraph examination. As to that portion of the witness’s testimony, the objection is sustained and it will be excluded from the consideration of the jury.”
The objection on which the trial court made the above ruling was to the effect that the State had not established that the defendant waived his rights prior to the time the statement was made; that the State had not shown evidence sufficient to show that the defendant waived those rights prior to the admission or confession that the Deputy Sheriff had testified to. There was no objection to the trial court’s failure to further spell out the voluntariness of the admission or confession. There is no evidence nor contention on the part of the defendant that there was any coercion. In fact, the testimony before the court negated that fact.
Appellant relied on the case of McDole v. State, 283 So. 2d 553 (Fla.1973) as determinative of this appeal, on the statement of the court when it said:
“A specific finding of voluntariness is necessary to insure that a judge has properly met this requirement.” Id. at 554.
While we do not quarrel with the Mc-Dole case, we do find a distinct difference in the factual situation. In McDole there was no question but that the confessions were coerced by physical treatment. It may be a better practice for the trial court to spell out his findings as to why he determines that the confession is voluntary, but we think and so hold, that in the absence of any evidence or contention of coercion, when taking the total record as a whole, which clearly indicates that the trial court had in fact determined that the confession was voluntary, then the error complained of was without merit, and, at most, harmless error. The remand for a new trial merely to let the trial court spell out that the confession was voluntary would accomplish no good for the appellant nor add anything to our system of jurisprudence.
Affirmed.
SPECTOR, Acting C. J., and BOYER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Anton Kevin Peterson v. State, 382 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 1980)…304 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 1974). See Green v. State, 363 So. 2d 188 (Fla.lst DCA 1978); Pitts v. State, 335 So. 2d 367 (Fla.lst DCA 1976); Leigh v. State, 312 So. 2d 464 (Fla.lst DCA 1975); Husk v. State, 305 So. 2d 19 (Fla.lst DCA 1974); Bunch v. State, 303 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Trolinger v. State, 300 So. 2d 310 (Fla.2d DCA 1974); Hester v. State, 357 So. 2d 481 (Fla.3d DCA 1978); Phelps v. State, 353 So. 2d 1221 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); Von Horn v. State, 334 So. 2d 43 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); Walker v. State, 31…
-
Collins v. Louie L. Wainwright, 311 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)…ness with unmistakable clarity also has merit. McDole v. State, Fla. 1973, 283 So. 2d 553. After McDole the Supreme Court decided Wilson v. State, Fla.1974, 304 So. 2d 119, and the First District Court of Appeal decided Bunch v. State, Fla.App.1974, 303 So. 2d 705. Those cases seem to hold that when an appellant does not charge coercion in obtaining the statement he attacks on appeal, if an examination of the entire record discloses that the trial court had in fact determined the statement was voluntary (but…
-
Anton Kevin Peterson v. State, 372 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)…appellant’s motion to suppress. Also, a review of the record as a whole in this cause deems it unnecessary to relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court for a specific finding and/or ruling on this issue of voluntariness. See also Bunch v. State, 303 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), cert. denied, 314 So. 2d 778 (Fla.1975); Green v. State, 363 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). In the instant case, the issue before the trial court on the motion to suppress was clearly and explicitly stated at least three times…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- McDOLE v. State, 283 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1973)