WILLIE T. BAILEY, 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 court held that the defendant's objection to the admission of his statement was too general to preserve the Miranda issue for appeal.
The defendant appealed a probation revocation, arguing a statement made to police was inadmissible due to lack of Miranda warnings. The State contende…
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 Predicate For Admission Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
On this appeal from a revocation of probation, the defendant urges that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence a statement obtained from the appellant by police officers after appellant was taken into custody where the State did not establish that such statement was made after the appellant had been advised of his right to remain silent and his right to counsel. Extended argument is made on the necessity for Miranda warnings to a defendant charged with a violation of probation. See State v. Heath, 343 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1977).
We do not reach this point because we find in the record testimony that the “Miranda rights” were given to the defendant prior to his statement. At the revocation hearing, the objection of defendant was only that “no proper predicate” was laid for the introduction of defendant’s statement to the officer. The objection is too general to raise the point now argued which is based upon the proposition that a general statement of the giving of “Miranda rights” is not sufficient to show compliance with the requirements of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).
A point directed to the sufficiency of the affidavit of violation of probation is without merit. See Simmons v. State, 287 So. 2d 720 (Fla.3d DCA 1974).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gernard Jackson v. State, 738 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…n “improper predicate,” is not a “specific ground of objection” within the meaning of section 90.104(l)(a) so as to preserve a ruling admitting evidence for appellate review. See Jackson v. State, 456 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Bailey v. State, 358 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). In order to be admissible, a business record pursuant to section 90.803(6)(a) must be shown to have been: 1. Made at or near the túne of the event; 2. By or from information transmitted by a person with knowledge; 3. Kept in…
Authorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- State v. Heath, 343 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1977)
- Levern Simmons v. State, 287 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)