Traber v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Traber v. State

212 So. 2d 676, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 6143

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 26, 1968

DocketNo. 67-475

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 212 So. 2d 676 (Traber 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

Traber v. State, 212 So. 2d 676, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 6143 (Fla. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this criminal appeal, the appellant raises two points. One goes to the sufficiency of the evidence. The record reveals substantial, competent evidence to support the judgment of conviction and, therefore, this point is not well taken. Crum v. State, Fla.App. 1965, 172 So.2d 24; Escobar v. State, Fla.App. 1966, 181 So.2d 193; Williams v. State, Fla.App. 1966, 187 So.2d 913; Richburg v. State, Fla.App.1967, 199 So.2d 488. The appellant also urges that the court erred in permitting certain evidence to be introduced in the nature of statements made by the defendant prior to his arrest, citing Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed. 2d 977; Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, as authority for reversal. We do not agree.

It was within the province of the trial judge to determine if the investigation had already focused on the defendant at the time the voluntary statements were made, in order to prevent the introduction of same without evidence of the required constitutional warnings. Not all statements are objectionable. United States v. Knight, E.D.Penn.1966, 261 F.Supp. 843; United States v. Spinney, D.C.Mass.1966, 264 F.Supp. 774; United States v. Kuntz, N.D.N.Y.1967, 265 F.Supp. 543; United States v. Gleason, S.D.N.Y.1967, 265 F.Supp. 880; United States v. Kubik, D.C.Del.1967, 266 F.Supp. 501.

Therefore, the judgment of conviction and sentence be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this criminal appeal, the appellant raises two points. One goes to the sufficiency of the evidence. The record reveals substantial, competent evidence to support the judgment of conviction and, therefore, this point is not well taken. Crum v. State, Fla.App. 1965, 172 So.2d 24; Escobar v. State, Fla.App. 1966, 181 So.2d 193; Williams v. State, Fla.App. 1966, 187 So.2d 913; Richburg v. State, Fla.App.1967, 199 So.2d 488. The appellant also urges that the court erred in permitting certain evidence to be introduced in the nature of statements made by the defendant prior to his arrest, citing Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed. 2d 977; Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, as authority for reversal. We do not agree.

It was within the province of the trial judge to determine if the investigation had already focused on the defendant at the time the voluntary statements were made, in order to prevent the introduction of same without evidence of the required constitutional warnings. Not all statements are objectionable. United States v. Knight, E.D.Penn.1966, 261 F.Supp. 843; United States v. Spinney, D.C.Mass.1966, 264 F.Supp. 774; United States v. Kuntz, N.D.N.Y.1967, 265 F.Supp. 543; United States v. Gleason, S.D.N.Y.1967, 265 F.Supp. 880; United States v. Kubik, D.C.Del.1967, 266 F.Supp. 501.

Therefore, the judgment of conviction and sentence be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

212 So. 2d 676, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 6143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/traber-v-state-fladistctapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack