Balthazar v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Balthazar v. State

533 So. 2d 955, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2582, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 5134, 1988 WL 123790

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 23, 1988

DocketNo. 4-86-1413

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 533 So. 2d 955 (Balthazar 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

533 So. 2d 955, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2582, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 5134, 1988 WL 123790, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/balthazar-v-state-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack