DONALD LANE, 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.
The appellate court affirmed Donald Lane's conviction for robbery and loitering and prowling. The court found no reversible error in the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress his confession, nor in prosecutorial comments made during opening arguments.
The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding that the confession was voluntary and that the defendant knowingly waived his rights. The court also found that the prosecutorial comments did not improperly allude to the defendant's silence and were proper.
[1] The determination of the voluntariness of a confession is for the trial court, whose province it is to adjudge the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence…
[2] A trial court's determination of the voluntariness of a confession must be supported by substantial competent evidence.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 determination of the issue of the voluntariness of a confession is for the trial court whose province it is to adjudge the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence.”
Establishes the trial court's role in determining confession voluntariness.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDonald Lane was convicted of robbery and loitering and prowling. He moved to suppress his confession, arguing it was involuntary due to drug influence…
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 Prosecutorial Comment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Donald Lane appeals his conviction for robbery, loitering and prowling.
Defendant first urges as reversible error the court’s denial of his motion to suppress his confession on the ground it was involuntary as he was under the influence of drugs at the time.
The determination of the issue of the voluntariness of a confession is for the trial court whose province it is to adjudge the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence. Von Horn v. State, 334 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). This determination must be supported by substantial competent evidence. Melero v. State, 306 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). After reviewing the record, we find that there was competent substantial evidence to sustain the trial court’s conclusion that defendant’s confession was freely and voluntarily given and he knowingly waived his constitutional rights. In fact, defendant’s written confession reflects that he was in complete control of his mental faculties at the time he wrote it.
Defendant next contends that the prosecutor in opening argument and a prosecution witness made statements which allegedly alluded to the fact that he had remained silent when he was first detained by the police and questioned about the robbery.
Although at first glance it appears that these statements made reference to defendant’s exercising his right to remain silent, when viewed and read in their proper context, it becomes readily apparent that these remarks were referring to defendant’s exculpatory statements denying any participation in the robbery.
Defendant’s last point is based upon allegedly improper prosecutorial comments made during opening argument.
We note that defense counsel failed to object to these comments and, therefore, this point should not be considered on appeal. See Thomas v. State, 326 So. 2d 413 (Fla.1975). We further find the statements were proper as a prosecutor may outline the facts which he, in good faith, expects to prove and which are competent for him to prove. See Paul v. State, 209 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
DeCONINGH v. State, 433 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1983)…Fla.1981); Reddish v. State, 167 So. 2d 858 (Fla.1964), and a confession will not be excluded on these grounds where it is shown that the defendant understands his rights, see e.g., Ashley v. State, 370 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Lane v. State, 353 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). (Emphasis supplied.) In the instant case, however, the state has failed to show that DeCo-ningh really understood anything. The knowingly and voluntarily requirements for confessions are similar to the requirements for accepting…
-
Eve Postell v. State, 383 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…; Doerr v. State, 348 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); T. B. v. State, 306 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). The trial court found a knowing and intelligent waiver by Postell, and its finding is supported by substantial competent evidence. Lane v. State, 353 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Gibbs v. State, 344 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Melero v. State, 306 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). We turn now to Postell’s challenge to her sentence. Postell claims that she fulfilled all requirements for sentencing under t…
-
Johnston v. Dugger, 583 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 1991)…e memory retention deficit, he did score a verbal IQ of 75 and a performance IQ of 101 on the WAIS-R test which would have placed him in the low average intelligence range. As in Ashley v. State, 370 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) and Lane v. State, 353 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), the statements themselves, although bizarre in some places, showed that he was in control of his mental faculties at the time he made them. He was competent to stand trial. Based on this evidence, I find that defendant’s mental…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Thomas v. State, 326 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 1975)
- Victoriano Melero v. State, 306 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- von Horn v. State, 334 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Paul v. State, 209 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)