STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
EUGENE PASCHAL, JR., 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.
Florida appeals a trial court's order suppressing statements made by defendant Eugene Paschal in connection with an alleged attempted murder. The appellate court reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding that initial pre-arrest statements were admissible as non-custodial investigatory questioning, but taped statements made at the police station were properly suppressed.
The initial statements made before arrest were admissible because they were not the product of custodial interrogation and therefore not subject to Miranda requirements. The statements made after Miranda warnings were given and waived were properly admissible. However, the taped statements made at the police station were properly suppressed under the principles established in State v. Prosser and Jones v. State.
[1] Statements made by a defendant in response to investigatory on-the-scene questioning are not inadmissible due to the failure to advise the defendant of Miranda rights if…
[2] Statements made by a defendant after receiving Miranda warnings and demonstrating a waiver of those rights are admissible.
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“The initial statements made by defendant were not the product of custodial interrogation and thus were not inadmissible due to the failure to advise defendant of his Miranda rights.”
Establishes that non-custodial investigatory questioning does not trigger Miranda requirements
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA police officer responded to an alleged attempted murder scene and questioned the victim (defendant's wife), who implicated defendant and indicated h…
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 On-The-Scene Questioning cases and more on FLexlaw
McCORD, Chief Judge.
State seeks review of the trial court’s order suppressing certain inculpatory statements made by appellee/defendant. Testimony revealed that upon arrival at the scene of an alleged attempted murder, a police officer questioned the victim, defendant’s wife, regarding the incident. The victim implicated defendant in the offense and indicated that he was in their house next door. The officer entered the house and asked defendant what had happened. After defendant made several inculpatory statements, he was placed under arrest and read the Miranda warnings, which he acknowledged he understood. Defendant then made other inculpatory statements. At the police station, defendant made further statements in a recorded statement. Trial court ordered all statements made by defendant suppressed. We reverse in part and affirm in part.
The initial statements made by defendant were not the product of custodial interrogation and thus were not inadmissible due to the failure to advise defendant of his Miranda rights. Although defendant had been implicated in the crime, when the officer entered the house to ask what happened, defendant had not been placed under arrest nor had his freedom of action been deprived in any significant way. The officer’s question was akin to the investigatory on-the-scene questioning referred to in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Cf. State v. Barnes, 245 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 3 DCA 1971); Melero v. State, 306 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 3 DCA 1975); United States v. Montos, 421 F. 2d 215 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1022, 90 S.Ct. 1262, 25 L.Ed.2d 532 (1970). The defendant’s second statements were properly admissible since they were made after Miranda warnings had been given and a waiver of those rights had been shown.
We agree that the taped statements were inadmissible under the principles enunciated in State v. Prosser, 235 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 1 DCA 1970), and Jones v. State, 346 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 2 DCA 1977). That portion of the order suppressing the taped statement is, therefore, AFFIRMED. The order is otherwise REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent herewith.
BOYER and SMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
T.J. and D.M. v. State, 452 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…action, and that Miranda warnings were not necessary, during this initial Terry stop, before the officer asked the juveniles what they were doing. Bautista. See Mathiason; Terry; Miranda; Hardie v. State, 333 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1976); State v. Paschal, 358 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 360 So. 2d 1249 (Fla.1978). When the juveniles told the officer they were selling avocados, and he observed that they had no avocados in their possession, the totality of the circumstances gave the officer probable cau…
-
State v. DeCONINGH, 400 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…rogation that triggers the necessity for adhering to the specific requirements of Miranda, supra. See, e. g., Beckwith v. United States, 425 U.S. 341, 96 S.Ct. 1612, 48 L.Ed.2d 1 (1976); State v. Fields, 294 N.W. 2d 404 (N.D.1980); State v. Paschal, 358 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Cummings v. State, supra. The fact that Sheriff Roth gave DeConingh the “advice of rights” form to read does not convert an otherwise non-custodial situation into a custodial one. United States v. Akin, 435 F. 2d 1011 (5th Cir.…
-
Bishop v. State, 382 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED on authority of State v. Paschal, 358 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), cert. den. 360 So. 2d 1249 (Fla.). DOWNEY, HERSEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.…
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
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- United States v. Montos, 421 F.2d 215 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Bauer v. Illinois, 397 U.S. 1022 (U.S. 1970)
- Farmer v. Superior Court of Cal., 397 U.S. 1022 (U.S. 1970)
- Victoriano Melero v. State, 306 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Jones v. State, 346 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Grady v. State, 245 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Daniels v. State, 235 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)
- State v. Prosser, 235 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)