B. M. V., A CHILD, 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.
A fifteen-year-old boy was adjudicated delinquent for burglary and committed to the Division of Youth Services. On appeal, the court found that the record did not reflect the voluntariness of the juvenile's confession and remanded for the trial court to make an explicit finding on this issue before the appellate court would proceed further.
The court found merit in the appellant's argument that the record did not reflect the confession was made voluntarily. The court remanded the case to the trial judge to make an unequivocal and explicit finding of voluntariness before the appellate court would proceed with further review.
[1] A juvenile's confession is inadmissible if the record does not reflect that it was made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently.
[2] A trial court must make an explicit and unequivocal finding on the voluntariness of a juvenile's confession before admitting it into 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 record does not reflect that the confession was made voluntarily”
The appellate court's finding regarding the fatal defect in the trial court's admission of evidence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceB.M., a fifteen-year-old boy, was charged with burglary of an unoccupied dwelling. He was taken to the Monroe County Sheriff's Department, where he si…
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 Delinquency cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, a fifteen-year old boy, was charged in a petition for delinquency with burglary of an unoccupied dwelling. He was adjudicated delinquent and committed to the Division of Youth Services for an indeterminate period, not to exceed his twenty-first birthday.
The record shows that the juvenile was taken to the Monroe County Sheriffs Department, Key Vaca Substation. There, appellant signed his name to an instrument labeled “Interrogation; Advice of Rights.” This instrument, the execution of which was witnessed by appellant’s father and a police Lieutenant Roth, purported to waive appellant’s constitutional rights to silence and an attorney. Subsequent to the execution of the waiver of rights, appellant was interrogated at the police station by officers of both the Monroe County Sheriffs Department and the Division of Youth Services. A transcript of the interrogation was made in which there does not appear any indication that appellant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived those rights which he purportedly waived by the execution of the “Advice of Rights” form. The youth was ordered detained in the Monroe County Regional Detention Center on December 8, 1977, pending an adjudicatory hearing in the case. The following day, on December 9, 1977, a petition alleging the delinquent acts of burglary and grand larceny was filed with the court.
Subsequently, appellant, through his attorney, demanded discovery from the state pursuant to Fla.R.Juv.P. 8.070. Upon learning of the existence of the statements, appellant filed a motion to suppress pursuant to Fla.R.Juv.P. 8.130(b)(3). A hearing was held on the motion immediately prior to the adjudicatory hearing on December 28, 1977. Upon hearing testimony and argument in the matter, the court denied the motion to suppress without stating its reasons therefor, nor issuing a written order of denial. The statements were admitted into evidence against appellant at the adjudicatory hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, appellant was adjudicated delinquent as to each charge in the petition, and was committed to the Division of Youth Services. He now appeals the order of adjudication and disposition.
One of appellant’s points on appeal is that the trial court erred when it admitted into evidence the confession of appellant prior to it being proved that the statement was made voluntarily, with knowledge of the consequences thereof. We find merit in appellant’s point as the record does not reflect that the confession was made voluntarily.
Therefore, in order to dispose of the issue of the court’s making an unequivocal and explicit finding of voluntariness, this court will relinquish jurisdiction and remand the cause to the trial judge to consider and rule on the voluntariness of appellant’s confession, with or without oral argument as the judge shall choose. Promptly, after an order is made on the issue of voluntariness, counsel for the juvenile shall file in this court a certified copy of such order. Further proceedings shall be taken by this court on this appeal as indicated or required by the juvenile court’s order making an explicit finding of the voluntariness of appellant’s confession. See B. M. v. State, 337 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); and Husk v. State, 305 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974).
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Cartwright, 448 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…If the objectionable confession is to be offered into evidence in a trial of the juvenile, it will be incumbent upon the trial court to make an independent inquiry into the voluntariness of the confession prior to such admission. B.M. V. v. State, 362 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). See M.A. v. State, 384 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) which discusses the advantages of a separate hearing on the issue of voluntariness. That determination is to be based upon the totality of the circumstances surrounding the tak…
-
B. W. V. v. State, 365 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…the trial court’s written statement filed herein, the record on appeal, briefs and argument of counsel, we have concluded that no reversible error has been made to appear. Therefore the judgment appealed is affirmed. Affirmed. . B. W. V. v. State, 362 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). This case was incorrectly styled “B. M. V. v. State” by this court.…
Authorities Cited
- In the Interest of Floyd Steven Husk v. State, 305 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- B. M. v. State, 337 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)