Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Date: 04-28-2018
Case Style:
Case Number: 17-1064
Judge: PER CURIAM
Court: DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
Plaintiff's Attorney: Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Melynda L. Melear, Senior Assistant Attorney General
Defendant's Attorney:
Description: A few days after the murder, the police conducted three interviews with the appellant, only the last of which was a custodial interrogation. During the second interview, appellant detailed the murder and confessed that he planned the crime in advance. Following his arrest, appellant was interviewed at the police station, where he again confessed. During this third interview, appellant�s father called a detective assigned to the murder case, although not present at the station. He informed the detective that he hired an attorney to represent his son and that the attorney advised
him not to let the appellant speak to law enforcement. Minutes later, the attorney left this detective a voicemail, attempting to invoke the appellant�s right to remain silent. At trial, appellant moved to suppress the third interview, arguing that the police violated his due process rights by not informing him that the attorney was attempting to assist him. For motions to suppress, we afford a presumption of correctness to a trial court�s factual findings, but review de novo questions of law. Wyche v. State, 987 So. 2d 23, 25 (Fla. 2008). It is a violation of due process for the police not to inform a defendant that an attorney retained by the accused�s family has offered assistance. Haliburton v. State, 514 So. 2d 1088, 1089-90 (Fla. 1987); see Bruce v. State, 92 So. 3d 902, 906 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (�Under Haliburton II, a suspect must be informed promptly of efforts by a lawyer to provide legal assistance relating to the detention.�). However, in light of appellant�s second confession, we find that the trial court�s failure to suppress the third interview was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129, 1135 (Fla. 1986). Appellant further contends that during the State�s closing rebuttal argument, the prosecutor indicated that the appellant�s motive for killing the victim was her race. The court sustained defense counsel�s objection to the comment, but it refused to give a curative instruction.
Outcome: Because appellant failed to move for mistrial, the issue is waived. Any error was not fundamental. Affirmed.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: