In the Interest of J. R. H. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

In the Interest of J. R. H. v. State

278 So. 2d 314, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 8053

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 5, 1973

DocketNo. 72-1506

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 278 So. 2d 314 (In the Interest of J. R. H. 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

In the Interest of J. R. H. v. State, 278 So. 2d 314, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 8053 (Fla. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The minor appellant was found by the trial court to be a delinquent child. The finding was based entirely upon a confession given to police after the minor was taken into custody and interrogated, and upon evidence discovered as a result of the confession. The State failed to prove that the minor was warned of his constitutional rights. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). The law applicable to a criminal proceeding has been declared to be applicable to juvenile proceedings where loss of liberty may result from the adjudication. See In re D., Fla.App.1971, 245 So.2d 273.

The State has confessed error in this regard. Our independent examination of the record confirms the error and the fact that there is insufficient evidence to-support the finding of delinquency absent the tainted evidence. We therefore reverse and direct the discharge of the appellant.

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The minor appellant was found by the trial court to be a delinquent child. The finding was based entirely upon a confession given to police after the minor was taken into custody and interrogated, and upon evidence discovered as a result of the confession. The State failed to prove that the minor was warned of his constitutional rights. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). The law applicable to a criminal proceeding has been declared to be applicable to juvenile proceedings where loss of liberty may result from the adjudication. See In re D., Fla.App.1971, 245 So.2d 273.

The State has confessed error in this regard. Our independent examination of the record confirms the error and the fact that there is insufficient evidence to-support the finding of delinquency absent the tainted evidence. We therefore reverse and direct the discharge of the appellant.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 So. 2d 314, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 8053, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-j-r-h-v-state-fladistctapp-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack