BILLY PITTS, 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.
Billy Pitts appealed his conviction, challenging the admissibility of his confession obtained during custodial interrogation. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed because the trial court failed to make specific findings of voluntariness as required by law, despite contradictory evidence being presented at the suppression hearing.
The trial court erred in failing to make specific findings of voluntariness as required by Florida law. The appellate court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial where the voluntariness of the confession could be properly determined.
[1] A trial court must make a specific finding of voluntariness when ruling on a motion to suppress a confession made during custodial interrogation.
[2] A trial court's ruling consisting solely of "Motion will be denied" is insufficient to satisfy the requirement of a specific finding of voluntariness for a confession.
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“it is clear that the trial court erred in failing to make a specific finding of voluntariness as required by the Florida Supreme Court”
States the core holding that the trial judge must make express findings of voluntariness when contradictory evidence is presented
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Pitts was interrogated in custody and made a confession. At the suppression hearing, contradictory direct and medical evidence was presented…
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 Knowing And Voluntary Waiver cases and more on FLexlaw
ENGLAND, ARTHUR J., Jr., Associate Judge.
This case is before us to determine whether the Circuit Court of the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit (Washington County) erred in denying a motion to suppress a confession made by the appellant during a custodial interrogation.
Appellant argues that the interrogating officers failed to apprise him of his right to have counsel present during questioning, that he was incapable of knowingly and voluntarily waiving his right to remain silent, and that the trial judge failed to make a clear finding that his confession was voluntarily given.
We find it unnecessary to resolve the first two issues raised by appellant since it is clear that the trial court erred in failing to make a specific finding of voluntariness as required by the Florida Supreme Court. McDole v. State, 283 So. 2d 553 (Fla.1973). As in McDole, there was contradictory direct and medical evidence presented by the police, and by the defendant, as to voluntariness, and the trial judge’s ruling consists solely of the words “Motion will be denied.” The state argues, however, that this case is controlled by Trolinger v. State, 300 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1974), cert. denied, 310 So. 2d 740 (Fla.1975), and that in any event the original defect was rectified four days later when, in the course of the trial, the judge announced that it would not be necessary to inquire into the voluntariness of the confession out of the presence of the jury because the confession had been ruled voluntary at the suppression hearing.
Trolinger is not applicable here, In that case, the trial judge made express findings which were found adequate under the McDole standard. In this case the trial judge made no findings of voluntariness whatsoever when he ruled on the admissibility of the confession. As regards the judge’s comment during trial, which did not with particularity indicate why the confession had been given voluntarily, it is obvious that the mere reference to a legally deficient ruling could not undo the original error. Appellant’s conviction and sentence are reversed, and this case is remanded for a new trial where the voluntariness of appellant’s confession can be properly determined.
McCORD, J., and LEE, THOMAS E., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Anton Kevin Peterson v. State, 382 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 1980)…s concerning the voluntariness of confessions demonstrates the confusion generated by McDole v. State, 283 So. 2d 553 (Fla.1973), and Wilson v. State, 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…
-
Greene v. State, 351 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 1977)…d v. State, 293 So. 2d 704 (Fla.1974)), a prior decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (Danahey v. State, 298 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)), and a recent opinion from the District Court of Appeal, First District (Pitts v. State, 335 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). As the forthcoming reasoning will more fully expound, we have jurisdiction.1 Petitioner was charged and convicted of robbery in a jury trial. Prior to the trial, petitioner made a motion to suppress a confession allegedly coerc…
Authorities Cited
- McDOLE v. State, 283 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1973)
- Trolinger v. State, 300 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- Rahming v. State, 310 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 1975)
- Trolinger v. State, 310 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 1975)