ARCHIE NATHANIEL WEATHERSPOON, 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.
Weatherspoon, a 17-year-old juvenile, appealed his robbery conviction on the ground that his confession was inadmissible because police violated Florida's juvenile detention laws by failing to follow required procedures regarding parental contact and notification before obtaining his confession.
The court held that the confession was inadmissible because Florida law affords juveniles special rights and protections that were not observed by police. The confession was extracted in violation of those requirements while appellant's parents waited to speak with him and after officers knew appellant was a juvenile.
[1] A confession obtained from a juvenile after police knew of the juvenile's age and while the juvenile's parents were waiting to see him is inadmissible.
[2] Juveniles are afforded rights and considerations not available to adult offenders under Florida law.
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“In Florida, juveniles are afforded rights and considerations not available to adult offenders.”
Establishes the legal principle that juveniles receive special statutory protections under Florida law that differ from adult suspects.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant, a 17-year-old juvenile, was arrested on August 14, 1974 at approximately 10:30 a.m. in connection with two robberies. His parents, grandmot…
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
PER CURIAM.
On this appeal from a judgment of conviction on two counts of robbery, to which appellant pleaded nolo contendere reserving the right to appeal, we are concerned with the admissibility in evidence of a confession obtained, after Miranda warnings were given, during appellant’s detention for six hours between his arrest and his delivery, as a 17-year old juvenile, to the intake officer of a juvenile detention center. The relevant facts are: Munford’s Maj ik Market was robbed at 7:36 a. m. on August 14, 1974 by one McDaniel who was arrested at 8:00 o’clock and who implicated appellant. Appellant was taken into custody at approximately 10:30 a. m. on the same date. At 11:00 a. m. appellant’s parents, grandmother and aunt arrived at the police station. Appellant’s father identified himself and inquired about his son and was told that appellant was being held. Appellant was observed being escorted upstairs. The relatives remained in the lobby of the police department until 4:00 or 4:30 p. m. when finally allowed to speak with appellant. In the meantime, according to the testimony of one of the officers, that officer had gained knowledge between 2:30 o’clock and 3:00 o’clock p. m. that appellant was a juvenile. Thereafter, at .3:35 Pm. appellant confessed to the crimes charged against him.
In Florida, juveniles are afforded rights and considerations not available to adult offenders. (See Chapter 39, Florida Statutes) It is uncontradicted that on the date of the offenses here charged appellant was in fact a juvenile. The applicable laws were not observed by the state. The challenged confession was extracted while appellant’s parents waited in frustration to see and talk to their son, and after at least one of the officers became aware of appellant’s true age. That confession should not have been admitted.
Reversed.
BOYER, C. J., and SACK, MARTIN, Associate Judge, concur. SMITH, J., dissents.
SMITH, Judge
(dissenting):
The trial court made explicit findings that the police were misled by appellant’s statement that he was 18 years old and by circumstances corroborating the statement and that the officers dealt with appellant as a juvenile immediately upon learning his true age. We are bound to give those findings effect, supported as they are by substantial competent evidence in the record. Accordingly, the confession given during the detention was not inadmissible by reason of the officers’ failure to deal more promptly with appellant as a juvenile. There was no “unreasonable delay” in delivering appellant to the appropriate intake officer. Sec. 39.03(3)(a), F.S.1973. Nor was the delay such as to require exclusion of the confession under the doctrine of Jacobs v. State, 248 So. 2d 515 (Fla.App. 1st, 1971), cert. den. 253 So. 2d 877 (Fla.1971), and Oliver v. State, 250 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 1971). I would affirm.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sublette v. State, 365 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…rom him are inadmissible. See Dowst v. State, 336 So. 2d 375 (Fla.1st DCA 1976); and § 39.03(3)(a), Fla. Stat.(1975). But cf. Doerr v. State, 348 So. 2d 938 (Fla.2d DCA 1977) (no request by child to speak to parents). See also Weatherspoon v. State, 328 So. 2d 875 (Fla.lst DCA 1976). In another point, appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his notions for a mistrial because counsel for the codefendant and the prosecutor clearly and unequivocally stated to the jury in closing argument that h…
-
Fields v. State, 377 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…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.…
-
Miller v. State OF Md. & Gerald A. Keller, 577 F.2d 1158 (4th Cir. 1978)…applied here. See also Commonwealth v. Webster, 466 Pa. 314, 320-28, 353 A. 2d 372, 376-79 (1975); In re K.W.B., 500 S.W. 2d 275, 279-83 (Mo.App.1973); Lewis v. State, 259 Ind. 431, 436-40, 288 N.E. 2d 138, 141-43 (1972). Cf. Weatherspoon v. State, 328 So. 2d 875, 876 (Fla. App.1976). The district court denied petitioner relief on the basis of the state courts’ findings that petitioner had been advised of his Miranda rights, including his right to have counsel present during interrogation, and that he had w…
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
- Oliver v. State, 250 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 1971)
- Roosevelt Stride "Teddy" Jacobs v. State, 248 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- Cochran v. State, 253 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 1971)
- State v. Roosevelt Stride "Teddy" Jacobs, 253 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 1971)