Floyd v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Floyd v. State

375 So. 2d 280, 1979 Ala. LEXIS 3112

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedSeptember 21, 1979

Docket78-254

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 375 So. 2d 280 (Floyd v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Floyd v. State, 375 So. 2d 280, 1979 Ala. LEXIS 3112 (Ala. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

EMBRY, Justice.

The writ of certiorari is quashed as improvidently granted. The writ was granted to review the issue of whether a statement made by petitioner Floyd without having been given the Miranda warnings, and while in custody, was admissible as an incul-patory statement against interest, therefore did not require a predicate of voluntariness. At first glance, it appeared from the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals that Floyd’s statement was in response to questions of a police officer. Examination of the record to clarify this point shows that the interrogation of Floyd was by a private person (his own physician) who was neither an instrumentality of the police nor acting at their direction.

Writ quashed.

TORBERT, C. J., and BLOODWORTH, FAULKNER and ALMON, JJ., concur.

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

EMBRY, Justice.

The writ of certiorari is quashed as improvidently granted. The writ was granted to review the issue of whether a statement made by petitioner Floyd without having been given the Miranda warnings, and while in custody, was admissible as an incul-patory statement against interest, therefore did not require a predicate of voluntariness. At first glance, it appeared from the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals that Floyd’s statement was in response to questions of a police officer. Examination of the record to clarify this point shows that the interrogation of Floyd was by a private person (his own physician) who was neither an instrumentality of the police nor acting at their direction.

Writ quashed.

TORBERT, C. J., and BLOODWORTH, FAULKNER and ALMON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

375 So. 2d 280, 1979 Ala. LEXIS 3112, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/floyd-v-state-ala-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack