Male v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Male v. State

189 So. 2d 521, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 4786

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 19, 1966

DocketNo. 65-567

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 189 So. 2d 521 (Male 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

Male v. State, 189 So. 2d 521, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 4786 (Fla. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

The only substantial question presented on this appeal is whether or not the defendant was denied his constitutional right to counsel under the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977.

y The pertinent sequence of events leading to the defendant’s confession is as follows: (1) Defendant was placed under arrest at his place of employment and transported to the homicide office of the Public Safety Department; (2) he was advised that if he talked about any aspect of the case he would have to do so freely and voluntarily; (3) the accused requested permission to contact his attorney and permission was granted; (4) after he had contacted his attorney, the defendant implicated himself by confessing that he was one of those who participated in the crime.

On this appeal, it is urged that, having been allowed to communicate with his attorney, the examination should have ceased until the attorney arrived. We are unable to subscribe to such a rule, and we do not find it implicit in the Escobedo decision.

From the record before us, it is apparent that the appellant made his statement freely and voluntarily after consultation with his attorney. The record does not reveal whether appellant’s attorney advised him to confess or to remain silent until a later time. The intention of the attorney to consult with the appellant again is not important in view of the fact that the appellant voluntarily confessed when he knew he had a right to await his attorney if he wished to do so. Cf. Montgomery v. State, Fla.1965, 176 So.2d 331.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The only substantial question presented on this appeal is whether or not the defendant was denied his constitutional right to counsel under the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977.

y The pertinent sequence of events leading to the defendant’s confession is as follows: (1) Defendant was placed under arrest at his place of employment and transported to the homicide office of the Public Safety Department; (2) he was advised that if he talked about any aspect of the case he would have to do so freely and voluntarily; (3) the accused requested permission to contact his attorney and permission was granted; (4) after he had contacted his attorney, the defendant implicated himself by confessing that he was one of those who participated in the crime.

On this appeal, it is urged that, having been allowed to communicate with his attorney, the examination should have ceased until the attorney arrived. We are unable to subscribe to such a rule, and we do not find it implicit in the Escobedo decision.

From the record before us, it is apparent that the appellant made his statement freely and voluntarily after consultation with his attorney. The record does not reveal whether appellant’s attorney advised him to confess or to remain silent until a later time. The intention of the attorney to consult with the appellant again is not important in view of the fact that the appellant voluntarily confessed when he knew he had a right to await his attorney if he wished to do so. Cf. Montgomery v. State, Fla.1965, 176 So.2d 331.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 So. 2d 521, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 4786, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/male-v-state-fladistctapp-1966.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack