Hampton v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hampton v. State

386 So. 2d 587, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17309

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 5, 1980

DocketNo. 79-936

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 386 So. 2d 587 (Hampton 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

Hampton v. State, 386 So. 2d 587, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17309 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of conviction and sentence under review is affirmed upon a holding that: (1) the trial court improperly admitted in evidence a statement made by the defendant to the police while under arrest as it was fatally tainted by prior statement made by the defendant to the police, which latter statement was properly suppressed by the trial court under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966); see Harney v. United States, 407 F.2d 586 (5th Cir. 1969); and (2) the above error, however, was harmless in the context of this case because (a) the improperly admitted statement was exculpatory in nature, (b) the improperly admitted statement was similar to a properly admitted statement of the defendant made prior to being taken into police custody, and (c) an unimpeached eye witness positively identified the defendant at trial as the perpetrator of the crimes for which he stands convicted. Ashley v. State, 370 So.2d 1191 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Ballard v. State, 323 So.2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); § 924.33, Fla.Stat. (1979).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of conviction and sentence under review is affirmed upon a holding that: (1) the trial court improperly admitted in evidence a statement made by the defendant to the police while under arrest as it was fatally tainted by prior statement made by the defendant to the police, which latter statement was properly suppressed by the trial court under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966); see Harney v. United States, 407 F.2d 586 (5th Cir. 1969); and (2) the above error, however, was harmless in the context of this case because (a) the improperly admitted statement was exculpatory in nature, (b) the improperly admitted statement was similar to a properly admitted statement of the defendant made prior to being taken into police custody, and (c) an unimpeached eye witness positively identified the defendant at trial as the perpetrator of the crimes for which he stands convicted. Ashley v. State, 370 So.2d 1191 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Ballard v. State, 323 So.2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); § 924.33, Fla.Stat. (1979).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

386 So. 2d 587, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17309, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hampton-v-state-fladistctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack