JOSEPH BRADLEY, 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.
Joseph Bradley appealed his nolo contendere plea to robbery, challenging the trial court's denial of three suppression motions. The court found the confession obtained through an improper promise of leniency should have been suppressed and reversed for a new trial.
The court reversed, finding the motion to suppress the confession should have been granted because the interrogator improperly promised the accused a 'deal' resulting in a lighter sentence. The motions to suppress the evidence and identifications lacked merit. The case was remanded for a new trial.
[1] A confession is inadmissible if induced by direct or implied promises of leniency, violating the principle that confessions must be free from the influence of hope or fea…
[2] A confession is not rendered inadmissible solely because it is induced by deception or the accused is told it will be easier to tell the truth.
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“an accused may not be improperly urged by direct or implied promises to make a statement, in violation of the basic tenet of law that a confessing defendant should be entirely free from the influence of hope or fear”
Establishes the legal standard for evaluating whether a confession is tainted by improper inducements
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBradley pled nolo contendere to robbery while reserving his right to appeal the denial of three motions to suppress: evidence seized, in-court and out…
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 Motion To Suppress Identification cases and more on FLexlaw
LETTS, Judge.
Appellant pled nolo contendere to a robbery charge reserving his right to appeal the denial of his (1) motion to suppress the evidence seized, (2) motion to suppress the out of, and in, court identifications and (3) his motion to suppress his confession. We find no merit on appeal concerning the trial judge’s ruling on the first and second motions, but believe the third should have been granted. We reverse.
Without lengthy discourse, we would reiterate our holding in Jarriel v. State, 317 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975) to the effect that an accused may not be improperly urged by direct or implied promises to make a statement, in violation of the basic tenet of law that a confessing defendant should be entirely free from the influence of hope or fear. Jarriel, supra, at 142. In so restating, we do not attempt to depart in any way from the holding in Paramore v. State, 229 So. 2d 855 (Fla.1969) wherein our Supreme Court held, inter alia, that a confession is not rendered inadmissible merely because it is induced by deception or because the accused is told it will be easier on him if he tells the truth.
In the case at bar, we perceive more than a suggestion that it would, or might, go easier or better for the accused if he confessed. Here the accused testified, in essence, that his interrogator stated that he could get him a “deal” which would result in a lighter sentence from the judge. This is more than a commitment from the police to do whatever they can to make it easier for the accused; this is, at the very least, a promise to deliver some form of relief in return for the confession.
We have been asked to review such obviously self serving testimony before and have often left such to be resolved by the trier of the fact where police witnesses have taken the stand and denied the making of any promise to deliver a “deal” as an accomplishable certainty. However, no such rebuttal was offered here. On the contrary, the assistant state attorney conceded that the officer may have “promised [the accused] things” and that he (the assistant state’s attorney) was “not so sure that is not true, knowing [the] detective . as I do and it’s a distress to me that I have to make that statement in open court.”
Such candor is refreshing and commendable, because all attorneys are, first and foremost, officers of the court. By contrast, the detective about whom the remarks were made, should be ashamed to be thus spoken of by a police prosecutor. WE REVERSE AND REMAND FOR A NEW TRIAL.
ALDERMAN, C. J., and MOORE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brown v. State, 413 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…ause there was other sufficient evidence to sustain Brown’s conviction, we remand for a new trial. REVERSED AND REMANDED. DAUKSCH, C. J., concurs. COWART, J., dissents with opinion. . Frazier v. State, 107 So. 2d 16 (Fla.1958); Bradley v. State, 356 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Jarriel v. State, 317 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); M. D. B. v. State, 311 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). . U. S. v. Marchand, 564 F. 2d 983 (2d Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1015, 98 S.Ct. 732, 54 L.Ed.2d 760 (1978).…
-
Norris Bernard Hawkins v. Louie L. Wainwright, 399 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…nt Roche’s pre-tape comments were designed [*451] to lead appellant into the belief that it would be easier for him if he told the truth, both the supreme court in Paramore v. State, 229 So. 2d 855, 858 (Fla.1969) and this court in Bradley v. State, 356 So. 2d 849, 850 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 360 So. 2d 1247 (Fla.1978), have recognized that this, does not render a confession inadmissible. AFFIRMED. MOORE and BERANEK, JJ., concur.…
-
State v. R.M., 696 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…in the light most favorable to the defendant, the totality of the circumstances surrounding the confession support the trial court’s ruling that the confession was involuntary. See Frazier v. State, 107 So. 2d 16 [*452] (Fla.1958); Bradley v. State, 356 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 360 So. 2d 1247 (Fla.1978); M.D.B. v. State, 311 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 321 So. 2d 555 (Fla.1975); Snipes v. State, 651 So. 2d 108, 110-11 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Fillinger v. State, 349 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 2…
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
- Sanelco, Inc. v. Roger Wells & the Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 229 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 1969)
- Jarriel v. State, 317 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)