State v. Hellman

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Hellman

448 So. 2d 1257, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13155

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 2, 1984

DocketNo. 83-1425

StatusPublished

This text of 448 So. 2d 1257 (State v. Hellman) 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

State v. Hellman, 448 So. 2d 1257, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13155 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

HERSEY, Judge.

The state appeals from an order granting a motion to suppress statements. The order appealed provides, in pertinent part, that “the Court is not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement was freely and voluntarily made It is apparent that the trial court was misled by the language of DeConingh v. State, 8 F.L.W. 153 (Fla.1983) which language was corrected in DeConingh v. State, 433 So.2d 501 (Fla.1983), holding that “[t]o be admissible, the state must show a confession to have been voluntary. The state was required to establish voluntariness by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. at 503. The trial court having applied a more restrictive standard in respect to the admissibility of the statements than is required by the law, we reverse and remand to permit the trial court to reconsider the issue in light of this opinion and the appropriate standard. See State v. Bastardo, 347 So.2d 463 (Fla.2d DCA 1977).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

LETTS and BERANEK, JJ., concur.

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

HERSEY, Judge.

The state appeals from an order granting a motion to suppress statements. The order appealed provides, in pertinent part, that “the Court is not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement was freely and voluntarily made It is apparent that the trial court was misled by the language of DeConingh v. State, 8 F.L.W. 153 (Fla.1983) which language was corrected in DeConingh v. State, 433 So.2d 501 (Fla.1983), holding that “[t]o be admissible, the state must show a confession to have been voluntary. The state was required to establish voluntariness by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. at 503. The trial court having applied a more restrictive standard in respect to the admissibility of the statements than is required by the law, we reverse and remand to permit the trial court to reconsider the issue in light of this opinion and the appropriate standard. See State v. Bastardo, 347 So.2d 463 (Fla.2d DCA 1977).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

LETTS and BERANEK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

448 So. 2d 1257, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hellman-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack