Hines v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hines v. State

770 So. 2d 293, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 14536, 2000 WL 1651305

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 6, 2000

DocketNo. 1D98-3797

StatusPublished

This text of 770 So. 2d 293 (Hines 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

Hines v. State, 770 So. 2d 293, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 14536, 2000 WL 1651305 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Karen Hines (Hines) appeals her conviction for perjury based upon statements she made under oath in a November 1995 civil deposition relating to worker’s compensation benefits. She argues that a subsequent statement given by her to investigators at her home on January 18, 1996, was involuntary because the investigators promised her immunity from prosecution for false statements given during the November 1995 deposition. We agree that the statement was involuntary and the trial court erred in denying Hines’ motion to suppress. Foreman v. State, 400 So.2d 1047 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

JOANOS, LAWRENCE and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., CONCUR.

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

PER CURIAM.

Karen Hines (Hines) appeals her conviction for perjury based upon statements she made under oath in a November 1995 civil deposition relating to worker’s compensation benefits. She argues that a subsequent statement given by her to investigators at her home on January 18, 1996, was involuntary because the investigators promised her immunity from prosecution for false statements given during the November 1995 deposition. We agree that the statement was involuntary and the trial court erred in denying Hines’ motion to suppress. Foreman v. State, 400 So.2d 1047 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

JOANOS, LAWRENCE and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

770 So. 2d 293, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 14536, 2000 WL 1651305, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hines-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack