Subirats v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Subirats v. State

182 So. 2d 291

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 1, 1966

DocketNo. 65-291

StatusPublished

This text of 182 So. 2d 291 (Subirats 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

Subirats v. State, 182 So. 2d 291 (Fla. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was convicted and sentenced of (1) breaking and entering a building and (2) grand larceny. The trial was before the court. The appellant was found guilty on both counts. On this appeal, the only substantial question raised is whether the court erred in admitting testimony as to an oral confession. It is contended by the appellant that the confession could not have been made because of a language barrier. In this non-jury trial, both the admissibility and the weight to be given the alleged oral confession were for determination by the trial court. The issue was squarely presented by the positive testimony of the police officer that, at the time of the arrest, the appellant was fully able to understand and make himself understood in English. There is no testimony except that of the defendant that he did not speak English.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was convicted and sentenced of (1) breaking and entering a building and (2) grand larceny. The trial was before the court. The appellant was found guilty on both counts. On this appeal, the only substantial question raised is whether the court erred in admitting testimony as to an oral confession. It is contended by the appellant that the confession could not have been made because of a language barrier. In this non-jury trial, both the admissibility and the weight to be given the alleged oral confession were for determination by the trial court. The issue was squarely presented by the positive testimony of the police officer that, at the time of the arrest, the appellant was fully able to understand and make himself understood in English. There is no testimony except that of the defendant that he did not speak English.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 So. 2d 291, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/subirats-v-state-fladistctapp-1966.