BILLIE ANN FILLINGER, 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.
Billie Ann Fillinger pleaded nolo contendere to grand larceny while reserving her right to appeal the denial of her motion to suppress her confession. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's denial of the suppression motion, finding that the confession was induced by implied promises of leniency, rendering it involuntary and inadmissible.
The confession was involuntary and inadmissible because it was induced by implied promises of leniency. The state failed to carry its burden of proving that the confession was freely and voluntarily made, and the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress.
[1] A confession is inadmissible if it is induced by any direct or implied promise, however slight.
[2] A confession is inadmissible if the accused is influenced by any threat or promise.
Previewing 2 of 6 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 confession can never be received in evidence where the prisoner has been influenced by any threat or promise; for the law cannot measure the force of the influence used, or decide upon its effect upon the mind of the prisoner”
Establishes the fundamental principle that confessions obtained through any threat or promise are inadmissible
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant, confined to a wheelchair, was initially arrested for petit larceny and confessed to that crime after being advised of her rights. During th…
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 Promise Of Leniency cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Judge.
Appellant pled nolo contendere to grand larceny reserving her right to appeal the denial of her motion to suppress her confession.
The police officer who elicited her confession was the sole witness at the hearing on the motion. According to the witness, the appellant, who was confined to a wheelchair, was initially arrested for petit larceny. She was advised of her constitutional rights, signed a waiver, and readily admitted her involvement in that crime.
During this period of time the interviewing officer was informed by a fellow officer that the appellant fit the description of a suspect in an earlier grand larceny case. He then questioned the appellant concerning that crime. At first, the appellant denied any involvement with or knowledge of the crime.
The officer told the appellant that he had enough information at that time to go to the state attorney in order to procure a warrant for her arrest. She asked him to explain the procedure for issuing and serving a warrant. The officer indicated that he would go to the state attorney and that if a warrant were issued, she could be arrested at a later time even in another city or state. In response to the question of what may have influenced appellant to change her mind and confess, the officer candidly stated:
“ . . .1 got the impression that she admitted this offense because she didn’t wish to take a chance on being arrested at a later date.”
The officer was then asked whether he had made any promises in return for her cooperation, to which he replied:
“The only thing I did stipulate that we would use in consideration her cooperation in this case, and I would advise the State Attorney of her cooperation, or not of her cooperation in the case.”
The officer added that he told her he would take her cooperation into consideration in seeking to establish the amount of her bond. The normal bond for grand larceny in that county is $5,000, but her bond was ultimately set at $2,500.
As early as 1897, the U.S. Supreme Court observed in Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532, 18 S.Ct. 183, 42 L.Ed. 568 (1897):
“ ‘. . . A confession can never be received in evidence where the prisoner has been influenced by any threat or promise; for the law cannot measure the force of the influence used, or decide upon its effect upon the mind of the prisoner . . .
Many years later the same court stated in Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U.S. 199, 80 S.Ct. 274, 4 L.Ed.2d 242 (1960):
“ . . . [T]his Court has recognized that coercion can be mental as well as physical, and that the blood of the accused is not the only hallmark of an unconstitutional inquisition. . . . ”
In order for a confession to be admissible, the state has the burden of showing that it was freely and voluntarily given. State v. Chorpenning, 294 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). It cannot have been obtained by any direct or implied promise, however slight. Shotwell Mfg. Co. v. United States, 371 U.S. 341, 83 S.Ct. 448, 9 L.Ed.2d 357 (1963). An accused from whom a confession is sought should be free from the influence of either hope or fear, and a confession must be excluded if the totality of the surrounding circumstances were calculated to delude the accused or to exert undue influence over him. M.D.B. v. State, 311 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Jarriel v. State, 317 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). If the interrogator induces the accused to confess by using language which amounts to a threat or promise of benefit, then the confession may be untrustworthy and should be excluded. Frazier v. State, 107 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 1958); State v. Chorpenning, supra.
Applying the established law to the circumstances surrounding appellant’s confession, the uncontradicted evidence indicates that the confession was induced by promises of leniency. Thus, the state failed to carry its burden of proof that the confession was freely and voluntarily made.
REVERSED.
BOARDMAN, C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (26 total)
-
Black v. State, 630 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…hen there has been no overreaching by police. Simply put, the Court in Connelly held that absent police wrongdoing, there is no Fifth Amendment violation. Prior to the decision in Connelly, the Second District Court of Appeal in Fillinger v. State, 349 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), cert. [*616] denied, 374 So. 2d 101 (Fla.1979), found that a confession had been induced by a promise of leniency and was therefore inadmissible. In Fillinger, the defendant had been arrested for petit theft. After being advised…
-
Bova v. State, 392 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…es of benefit which were calculated to play upon his hopes and fears and which rendered his subsequent statement involuntary. The legal effect of implied promises upon a defendant’s confession was fully discussed by the court in Fillinger v. State, 349 So. 2d 714, 715-16 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 374 So. 2d 101 (Fla.1979): In order for a confession to be admissible, the state has the burden of showing that it was freely and voluntarily given. State v. Chorpenning, 294 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). I…
-
Hawthorne v. State, 377 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…exerted.’ ” The foregoing is a statement of the law in this State: Frazier v. State, 107 So. 2d 16 (Fla.1958); Harrison v. State, 152 Fla. 86, 12 So. 2d 307 (Fla.1943); MDB v. State, 311 So. 2d 399, 400 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). In Fillinger v. State, 349 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1977), the officer who questioned the defendant and elicited her confession testified that he told the defendant he would advise the state attorney of her cooperation and that he would take her cooperation into consideration in seeking…
Previewing 3 of 26 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1897)
- Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U.S. 199 (U.S. 1960)
- Shotwell Mfg. Co. v. United States, 371 U.S. 341 (U.S. 1963)
- Frazier v. State, 107 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 1958)
- State v. Chorpenning, 294 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- Clark Johnston v. Dean, 311 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Jarriel v. State, 317 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)