State v. Kobielnik

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Kobielnik

765 So. 2d 241, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 9769, 2000 WL 1062193

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 4, 2000

DocketNo. 2D99-3084

StatusPublished

This text of 765 So. 2d 241 (State v. Kobielnik) 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. Kobielnik, 765 So. 2d 241, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 9769, 2000 WL 1062193 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

BLUE, Judge.

The State appeals an order suppressing statements made by Brian Kobielnik while in police custody on a charge of capital sexual battery. Because the record supports the trial court’s ruling that the statements were not voluntarily made and should be suppressed, we affirm.

In a comprehensive order, the trial court found that actions and comments by law enforcement officers undermined the vol-untariness of Mr. Kobielnik’s statements. The trial court found that the officers made express and implied promises of help to Mr. Kobielnik, fabricated evidence to obtain a confession, and deluded him as to the severity of the charge he was facing. Based on these factual findings, which are supported by the record, the trial court properly found that Mr. Kobielnik’s statements were not voluntary. See, e.g., Bruno v. State, 574 So.2d 76, 79-80 (Fla.1991); State v. Mallory, 670 So.2d 103, 107 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); State v. Charon, 482 So.2d 392 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Applying the “totality of the circumstances” test, the trial court correctly suppressed the statements. See Walker v. State, 707 So.2d 300, 311 (Fla.1997). Accordingly, we affirm the suppression order.

Affirmed.

ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and FULMER, J., Concur.

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

BLUE, Judge.

The State appeals an order suppressing statements made by Brian Kobielnik while in police custody on a charge of capital sexual battery. Because the record supports the trial court’s ruling that the statements were not voluntarily made and should be suppressed, we affirm.

In a comprehensive order, the trial court found that actions and comments by law enforcement officers undermined the vol-untariness of Mr. Kobielnik’s statements. The trial court found that the officers made express and implied promises of help to Mr. Kobielnik, fabricated evidence to obtain a confession, and deluded him as to the severity of the charge he was facing. Based on these factual findings, which are supported by the record, the trial court properly found that Mr. Kobielnik’s statements were not voluntary. See, e.g., Bruno v. State, 574 So.2d 76, 79-80 (Fla.1991); State v. Mallory, 670 So.2d 103, 107 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); State v. Charon, 482 So.2d 392 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Applying the “totality of the circumstances” test, the trial court correctly suppressed the statements. See Walker v. State, 707 So.2d 300, 311 (Fla.1997). Accordingly, we affirm the suppression order.

Affirmed.

ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and FULMER, J., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

765 So. 2d 241, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 9769, 2000 WL 1062193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-kobielnik-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack