Alfano v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Alfano v. State

696 So. 2d 442, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 7513, 1997 WL 361498

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 2, 1997

DocketNo. 96-2331

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 696 So. 2d 442 (Alfano v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alfano v. State, 696 So. 2d 442, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 7513, 1997 WL 361498 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. The error, if any, in admitting the pre-Miranda statement of appellant was rendered harmless by his subsequent confession, the DNA evidence, and the many admissions appellant made to his mother and stepfather regarding the crime. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986).

We do not find the admission of the post-Miranda statements to have been clearly erroneous, as the appellant’s mental condition is merely one of the factors to be considered under the totality of the circumstances to determine the voluntariness of a confession. See Thompson v. State, 548 So.2d 198, 204 (Fla.1989), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1125, 115 S.Ct. 2283, 132 L.Ed.2d 286 (1995). There is sufficient evidence in the record to support the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to suppress.

As to the admission of portions of the appellant’s diary, the trial court has wide discretion concerning the admissibility of evidence, and in the absence of an abuse of discretion, its ruling regarding admissibility will not be disturbed. We find no abuse of discretion.

WARNER, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ„ concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. The error, if any, in admitting the pre-Miranda statement of appellant was rendered harmless by his subsequent confession, the DNA evidence, and the many admissions appellant made to his mother and stepfather regarding the crime. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986).

We do not find the admission of the post-Miranda statements to have been clearly erroneous, as the appellant’s mental condition is merely one of the factors to be considered under the totality of the circumstances to determine the voluntariness of a confession. See Thompson v. State, 548 So.2d 198, 204 (Fla.1989), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1125, 115 S.Ct. 2283, 132 L.Ed.2d 286 (1995). There is sufficient evidence in the record to support the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to suppress.

As to the admission of portions of the appellant’s diary, the trial court has wide discretion concerning the admissibility of evidence, and in the absence of an abuse of discretion, its ruling regarding admissibility will not be disturbed. We find no abuse of discretion.

WARNER, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

696 So. 2d 442, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 7513, 1997 WL 361498, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alfano-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack