Hanthorn v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hanthorn v. State

622 So. 2d 1370, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 8835, 1993 WL 331301

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 1, 1993

DocketNo. 92-0079

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 622 So. 2d 1370 (Hanthorn 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

Hanthorn v. State, 622 So. 2d 1370, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 8835, 1993 WL 331301 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The issue in this case is whether the defendant’s confession should be suppressed because he received promises that, in return for his cooperation concerning other crimes, he would not be charged with those crimes. We reverse.

A defendant is entitled to suppression of a confession which is induced by a direct or implied benefit. Rivera v. State, 547 So.2d 140 (Fla. 4th DCA1989), rev. denied, 558 So.2d 19 (Fla.1990). Although the officer who took the defendant’s confession made no such promises, he conceded that his superior, a lieutenant, may have made such promises, as the defendant insisted he did. The defendant’s version of those events was not refuted. Thus, the state failed to carry its burden of proof that the confession was freely and voluntarily made. See M.D.B. v. State, 311 So.2d 399 (Fla. 4th DCA1975) (confession was held invalid where it was undisputed that officers promised juvenile that he would not be charged with other offenses if he confessed).

REVERSED.

GLICKSTEIN and GUNTHER, JJ., and WALDEN, JAMES H., Senior Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The issue in this case is whether the defendant’s confession should be suppressed because he received promises that, in return for his cooperation concerning other crimes, he would not be charged with those crimes. We reverse.

A defendant is entitled to suppression of a confession which is induced by a direct or implied benefit. Rivera v. State, 547 So.2d 140 (Fla. 4th DCA1989), rev. denied, 558 So.2d 19 (Fla.1990). Although the officer who took the defendant’s confession made no such promises, he conceded that his superior, a lieutenant, may have made such promises, as the defendant insisted he did. The defendant’s version of those events was not refuted. Thus, the state failed to carry its burden of proof that the confession was freely and voluntarily made. See M.D.B. v. State, 311 So.2d 399 (Fla. 4th DCA1975) (confession was held invalid where it was undisputed that officers promised juvenile that he would not be charged with other offenses if he confessed).

REVERSED.

GLICKSTEIN and GUNTHER, JJ., and WALDEN, JAMES H., Senior Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

622 So. 2d 1370, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 8835, 1993 WL 331301, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hanthorn-v-state-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack