Shook v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Shook v. State

770 So. 2d 1261, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 14658, 2000 WL 1675876

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 9, 2000

DocketNo. 1D99-1690

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 770 So. 2d 1261 (Shook 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

Shook v. State, 770 So. 2d 1261, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 14658, 2000 WL 1675876 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals the denial of his motion to suppress a taped statement made to police while in custody, and the admission of testimony at trial of statements Appellant made to eyewitnesses. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for a new trial.

We hold that Appellant’s statement, “Get me an attorney right now” was an unequivocal request for counsel, and interrogation should have ceased immediately, and not resumed until counsel was provided. Smith v. Illinois, 469 U.S. 91, 105 S.Ct. 490, 83 L.Ed.2d 488 (1984); Almeida v. State, 737 So.2d 520 (Fla.1999), cert. denied — U.S.-, 120 S.Ct. 1221, 145 L.Ed.2d 1121 (2000). Therefore, we must reverse and remand for a new trial. Appellant’s other issue on appeal claiming the trial court erred in admitting testimony of certain witnesses is without merit.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

BOOTH, ALLEN and PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals the denial of his motion to suppress a taped statement made to police while in custody, and the admission of testimony at trial of statements Appellant made to eyewitnesses. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for a new trial.

We hold that Appellant’s statement, “Get me an attorney right now” was an unequivocal request for counsel, and interrogation should have ceased immediately, and not resumed until counsel was provided. Smith v. Illinois, 469 U.S. 91, 105 S.Ct. 490, 83 L.Ed.2d 488 (1984); Almeida v. State, 737 So.2d 520 (Fla.1999), cert. denied — U.S.-, 120 S.Ct. 1221, 145 L.Ed.2d 1121 (2000). Therefore, we must reverse and remand for a new trial. Appellant’s other issue on appeal claiming the trial court erred in admitting testimony of certain witnesses is without merit.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

BOOTH, ALLEN and PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

770 So. 2d 1261, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 14658, 2000 WL 1675876, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shook-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack