Villar v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Villar v. State

441 So. 2d 1181, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 25113

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 14, 1983

DocketNo. 82-2399

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 441 So. 2d 1181 (Villar 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

Villar v. State, 441 So. 2d 1181, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 25113 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

BERANEK, Judge.

Appellant appeals his conviction of second degree murder on two grounds, both related to admissibility of evidence. We affirm. Evidence of a collateral crime was admissible in this case as it was relevant to negate appellant’s theory of self-defense. See Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla.1959). Furthermore, we find no error in the admission of appellant’s oral statements made at the detention center. Although his parents were notified that appellant had been arrested, they were not told of the interrogation. Notification under Section 39.03(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1981), is merely to advise the parents of a juvenile’s whereabouts. Even if there had been no notification, this failure is not controlling. Admission of a juvenile’s statements depends upon their voluntariness considered in the light of the totality of the circumstances. Doerr v. State, 383 So.2d 905 (Fla.1980), Batch v. State, 405 So.2d 302 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).

.AFFIRMED.

LETTS and HERSEY, JJ., concur.

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

BERANEK, Judge.

Appellant appeals his conviction of second degree murder on two grounds, both related to admissibility of evidence. We affirm. Evidence of a collateral crime was admissible in this case as it was relevant to negate appellant’s theory of self-defense. See Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla.1959). Furthermore, we find no error in the admission of appellant’s oral statements made at the detention center. Although his parents were notified that appellant had been arrested, they were not told of the interrogation. Notification under Section 39.03(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1981), is merely to advise the parents of a juvenile’s whereabouts. Even if there had been no notification, this failure is not controlling. Admission of a juvenile’s statements depends upon their voluntariness considered in the light of the totality of the circumstances. Doerr v. State, 383 So.2d 905 (Fla.1980), Batch v. State, 405 So.2d 302 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).

.AFFIRMED.

LETTS and HERSEY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

441 So. 2d 1181, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 25113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/villar-v-state-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack