Clark v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Clark v. State

207 So. 2d 481

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 27, 1968

DocketNo. 66-1107

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 207 So. 2d 481 (Clark 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

Clark v. State, 207 So. 2d 481 (Fla. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants were found guilty and sentenced for robbery. On this appeal they present two points. The first applies to appellant Clark only and urges that he was deprived of his constitutional rights by the introduction of testimony as to a voluntary spontaneous statement by appellant Coley at the scene of the arrest. We hold that the admonition in Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) has no application to this situation. See also Jones v. State, Fla.App.1967, 200 So.2d 574; Kinsey v. State, Fla.App.1967, 193 So.2d 437.

The second point urges that appellants were not adequately warned as required by Miranda v. State of Arizona, supra. The record reveals a full and adequate warning to the defendants by the arresting officer and in addition, reveals no custodial interrogation. See Biglow v. State, Fla.App.1967, 205 So.2d 547.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellants were found guilty and sentenced for robbery. On this appeal they present two points. The first applies to appellant Clark only and urges that he was deprived of his constitutional rights by the introduction of testimony as to a voluntary spontaneous statement by appellant Coley at the scene of the arrest. We hold that the admonition in Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) has no application to this situation. See also Jones v. State, Fla.App.1967, 200 So.2d 574; Kinsey v. State, Fla.App.1967, 193 So.2d 437.

The second point urges that appellants were not adequately warned as required by Miranda v. State of Arizona, supra. The record reveals a full and adequate warning to the defendants by the arresting officer and in addition, reveals no custodial interrogation. See Biglow v. State, Fla.App.1967, 205 So.2d 547.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 So. 2d 481, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-state-fladistctapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack