CLAXTON LATTIMORE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Claxton Lattimore was convicted of second-degree murder for fatally stabbing his wife following a bench trial. On appeal, he challenged the admission of a bloody kitchen knife as evidence, arguing it was obtained in violation of his Miranda rights. The court affirmed, holding that the officer's pre-arrest question about the knife's location was general on-scene questioning that did not require Miranda warnings.
The trial court did not commit reversible error in admitting the knife into evidence. The officer's question was asked prior to arrest and was not made during custodial interrogation, and thus Miranda warnings were not required. The questioned ruling was proper under Florida Statute § 901.151(5), and the knife was admissible.
[1] A police officer's general on-the-scene questioning prior to an arrest, which elicits the production of evidence from a suspect, does not constitute custodial interrogation for purposes of Miranda v. …
[2] Evidence voluntarily produced by a suspect in response to a police officer's general on-the-scene questioning prior to arrest is admissible.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 officer's question was prior to the arrest of the appellant, and was not made in the course of any custodial interrogation. The knife produced thereby by the appellant was not inadmissible.”
Establishes the court's holding that Miranda warnings were not required because the questioning occurred before arrest and outside of custodial interrogation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice responded to a call made by Lattimore reporting that a woman had been cut. Upon arrival at his residence, the officer was led to a bedroom wher…
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 On-The-Scene Questioning cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant was charged by information with the crime of second degree murder, for the fatal stabbing of his wife. Upon a non-jury trial, he was found and adjudged guilty, was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of ten years, and appealed.
In response to a call to the police, shown to have been made by the appellant, reporting that a woman had been cut, a police officer went to the address given, which was the appellant’s residence. On entering and inquiring with reference thereto, the officer was led by the appellant to a bedroom where he observed a woman lying on a bed bleeding from stab wounds but still alive. The officer inquired of the appellant as to the whereabouts of the knife.1 Thereupon appellant produced a bloody kitchen knife from a table or dresser in the room and handed it over to the officer. Thereafter the appellant was placed under arrest, and later, after having been duly warned of his rights, was questioned at which time he made a statement.
On this appeal it is contended by the appellant that the trial court committed reversible error by overruling a defense objection to introduction of the knife into evidence by the State. On consideration of the briefs, argument and the record, we hold that the questioned ruling of the trial court was not error. See: § 901.151(5), Fla.Stat, F.S.A. The officer’s question was prior to the arrest of the appellant, and was not made in the course of any custodial interrogation. The knife produced thereby by the appellant was not inadmissible. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694; United States v. Montos, 5th Cir. 1970, 421 F. 2d 215; Koran v. United States, 5th Cir. 1972, 469 F. 2d 1071. The inquiry which resulted in the disclosure of the knife was general on-the-scene questioning. See: Melero v. State, Fla.App.1975, 306 So. 2d 603; Hill v. State, Fla.App.1969, 223 So. 2d 548.
The judgment is affirmed.
. “Q. (By Mr. Kaye) What, if anything was said by you or him?
“A. [By the Officer] I said, ‘Where is tho knife?’ Mr. Lattimore turned back around and reached up on top of the dresser in among a lot of bottles and things and picked up a used kitchen knife and came back around rather fast at my direction, at which time I reached up and grabbed his hands and said, ‘Just let me have it. Let me take it.’ I took it out of his hands.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Edmond Duhart v. State, 348 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Melero v. State, 306 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Lattimore v. State, 323 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); United States v. Jones, 457 F. 2d 697 (5th Cir. 1972); Chaney v. State, 267 So. 2d 65 (Fla.1972); Hanks v. State, 305 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); and compare Cribbs v. State, 297 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974).…
Authorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- United States v. Montos, 421 F.2d 215 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Victoriano Melero v. State, 306 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Mortimer Norman Koran v. United States, 469 F.2d 1071 (5th Cir. 1972)
- Hill v. State, 223 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)