Balthazar v. State

533 So. 2d 955, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2582, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 5134, 1988 WL 123790
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 23, 1988·No. No. 4-86-1413·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm defendant’s conviction and apply the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof for evaluating the voluntariness of the defendant’s confession.

The preponderance of the evidence standard has been generally applied in Florida cases where the voluntariness of a defendant’s confession is at issue. See McDole v. State, 283 So.2d 553 (Fla.1973). We apply it here where the defendant is alleged to have a limited understanding of English. We agree with the state’s assertion that although its burden in proving voluntariness is a heavy one in such circumstances, the standard of proof does not change from a preponderance of the evidence standard to a clear and convincing one. See DeCo-ningh v. State, 433 So.2d 501, 503 (Fla. 1983); Rodriguez v. State, 287 So.2d 395, 396-97 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973).

GLICKSTEIN, WALDEN and STONE, JJ., concur.

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

Balthazar v. State, 533 So. 2d 955, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2582, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 5134, 1988 WL 123790 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

533 So. 2d 955 (Balthazar v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Balthazar v. State
549 So. 2d 661 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1989)