45 So.3d 403, 35 Fla. L. Weekly S295

Briefs and Other Related Documents

Judges, Attorneys and Experts

Supreme Court of Florida.

Blaine ROSS, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. SC07-2368.

May 27, 2010.
As Revised on Denial of Rehearing Sept. 8, 2010.

Background: Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and robbery, and sentenced to death, following jury trial in the Circuit Court, Manatee County, Edward Nicholas, J., Defendant appealed.

Holdings: The Supreme Court held that:

(1) defendant was “in custody” for Miranda purposes;

(2) officers used improper and deliberate tactics in delaying administration of Miranda warnings;

(3) officers minimized significance of Miranda rights;

(4) defendant did not voluntarily waive his Miranda rights, such that his postwarning confession was not voluntary; and

(5) admission of defendant's postwarning statements was not harmless error.

Reversed and remanded.

Quince, C.J., specially concurred and filed opinion.

Polston, J., dissented and filed opinion in which Canady and Perry, JJ., joined.

West Headnotes


[1] KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote
110 Criminal Law
110XVII Evidence
110XVII(T) Confessions
110k517.1 Voluntary Character of Confession
110k517.1(2) k. Necessity for showing voluntary character. Most Cited Cases

In order for a confession during a custodial interrogation to be admissible in a criminal trial, the State must prove that the confession was not compelled, but was voluntarily made. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5; West's F.S.A. Const. Art. 1, § 9.


[2] KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote
110 Criminal Law
110XVII Evidence
110XVII(M) Declarations
110k411 Declarations by Accused
110k412.2 Right to Counsel; Caution
110k412.2(3) k. Informing accused as to his rights. Most Cited Cases
410 Witnesses KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote
410IV Credibility and Impeachment
410IV(D) Inconsistent Statements by Witness
410k390 Competency of Evidence of Inconsistent Statements in General
410k390.1 k. In general. Most Cited Cases

A Miranda violation does not constitute coercion but rather affords a bright-line, legal presumption of coercion, requiring suppression of all unwarned statements; this presumption is irrebuttable for the purposes of the State's case in chief, though the statements can be used as impeachment during cross-examination. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5.


[3] KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote
110 Criminal Law
110XXIV Review
110XXIV(L) Scope of Review in General
110XXIV(L)13 Review De Novo
110k1139 k. In general. Most Cited Cases
110 Criminal Law KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote
110XXIV Review
110XXIV(O) Questions of Fact and Findings
110k1158.8 Evidence
110k1158.12 k. Evidence wrongfully obtained. Most Cited Cases

When reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress, mixed questions of law and fact that ultimately determine constitutional rights should be reviewed by appellate courts using a two-step approach: the Supreme Court defers to a trial court's findings of fact as long as they are supported by competent, substantial evidence, but the Court reviews de novo a trial court's application of the law to the historical facts.


[4] KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote
110 Criminal Law
110XVII Evidence
110XVII(M) Declarations
110k411 Declarations by Accused
110k412.2 Right to Counsel; Caution
110k412.2(2) k. Accusatory stage of proceedings; custody. Most Cited Cases

Police are not required to give Miranda warnings to every potential suspect; rather, Miranda warnings apply only to in-custody interrogations. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5.


[5] KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote
110 Criminal Law
110XVII Evidence
110XVII(M) Declarations
110k411 Declarations by Accused
110k412.2 Right to Counsel; Caution
110k412.2(2) k. Accusatory stage of proceedings; custody. Most Cited Cases

“Custodial interrogation,” for purposes of Miranda, means questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.


[6] KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote
110 Criminal Law
110XVII Evidence
110XVII(M) Declarations
110k411 Declarations by Accused
110k412.2 Right to Counsel; Caution
110k412.2(2) k. Accusatory stage of proceedings; custody. Most Cited Cases

The determination of whether a person is in custody for purposes of Miranda depends on how a reasonable person in the suspect's situation would perceive his circumstances. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5.


[7] KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote
110 Criminal Law
110XVII Evidence
110XVII(M) Declarations
110k411 Declarations by Accused
110k412.2 Right to Counsel; Caution
110k412.2(2) k. Accusatory stage of proceedings; custody. Most Cited Cases

In order for a court to conclude that a suspect was “in custody,” for purposes of Miranda, it must be evident that, under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person in the suspect's position would feel a restraint of his or her freedom of movement, fairly characterized, so that the suspect would not feel free to leave or to terminate the encounter with police.


[8] KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote
110 Criminal Law
110XVII Evidence
110XVII(M) Declarations
110k411 Declarations by Accused
110k412.2 Right to Counsel; Caution
110k412.2(2) k. Accusatory stage of proceedings; custody. Most Cited Cases

When determining whether a suspect was in custody, for purposes of Miranda, the Supreme Court considers the following factors: (1) the manner in which police summon the suspect for questioning; (2) the purpose, place, and manner of the interrogation; (3) the extent to which the suspect is confronted with evidence of his or her guilt; and (4) whether the suspect is informed that he or she is free to leave the place of questioning.


[9] KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote
110 Criminal Law
110XVII Evidence
110XVII(M) Declarations
110k411 Declarations by Accused
110k412.2 Right to Counsel; Caution
110k412.2(2) k. Accusatory stage of proceedings; custody. Most Cited Cases

Murder defendant was in custody for purposes of Miranda; defendant came to sheriff's office for meeting with victim's advocate and detective requested that defendant see him before he left, detective shifted focus from inconsistencies in defendant's story to defendant's role in murders through highly confrontational and accusatory questioning of defendant regarding defendant's bloody pants that were found at crime scene, detective repeatedly referred to bloody pants during interview and how such evidence could not be disputed, detective stressed that evidence implicated defendant when defendant denied any involvement in murders, and defendant was never informed that he was free to leave and was told to smoke in room when defendant asked for cigarette break.


[10] KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote
110 Criminal Law
110XXIV Review
110XXIV(L) Scope of Review in General
110XXIV(L)4 Scope of Inquiry
110k1134.49 Evidence
110k1134.49(3) k. Statements, confessions, and admissions. Most Cited Cases

Although deference is to be accorded to credibility findings, the issue of the admissibility of the postwarning statements under Miranda is a mixed question of law and fact. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5.


[11] KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote
110 Criminal Law
110XX Trial
110XX(F) Province of Court and Jury in General
110k733 Questions of Law or of Fact
110k736 Preliminary or Introductory Questions of Fact
110k736(2) k. Confessions, admissions, and declarations. Most Cited Cases

The ultimate issue of voluntariness of a statement after Miranda warnings have been provided is a legal rather than factual question. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5.


[12] KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote
110 Criminal Law
110XVII Evidence
110XVII(T) Confessions
110k531 Evidence
110k531(1) k. Presumptions and burden of proof. Most Cited Cases

The State bears the burden of showing that the confession, made after Miranda warnings have been provided, was not compelled but was voluntarily made. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5.


[13] KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote
110 Criminal Law
110XVII Evidence
110XVII(T) Confessions
110k531 Evidence
110k531(3) k. Weight and sufficiency of evidence. Most Cited Cases

Where a confession is obtained after the administration of Miranda warnings, the State bears a heavy burden to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his or her privilege against self-incrimination and the right to counsel. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5.


[14] KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote
110 Criminal Law
110XVII Evidence
110XVII(M) Declarations
110k411 Declarations by Accused
110k412.2 Right to Counsel; Caution
110k412.2(5) k. Failure to request counsel; waiver. Most Cited Cases

Whether a defendant validly waived his rights under Miranda is a twofold inquiry: first, the relinquishment of the right must have been voluntary in the sense that it was the product of free and deliberate choice rather than intimidation, coercion, or deception, and second, the waiver must have been made with a full awareness of both the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it; only if the totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation reveal both an uncoerced choice and the requisite level of comprehension may a court properly conclude that the Miranda rights have been waived. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5.


[15] KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote
110 Criminal Law
110XVII Evidence
110XVII(M) Declarations
110k411 Declarations by Accused
110k412 In General
110k412(4) k. Circumstances affecting admissibility in general. Most Cited Cases

The analysis of the admissibility of statements made following a custodial interrogation and after the delayed administration of Miranda warnings is based on the totality of the circumstances, with the following being factors important in making this determination: (1) whether the police used improper and deliberate tactics in delaying the administration of the warnings in order to obtain the initial statement; (2) whether the police minimized and downplayed the significance of the Miranda rights once they were given; and (3) the circumstances surrounding the warned and unwarned statements including the completeness and detail of the questions and answers in the first round of interrogation, the overlapping content of the two statements, the timing and setting of the interrogations, the continuity of police personnel, and the degree to which the interrogator's questions treated the second round as continuous with the first. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5; West's F.S.A. Const. Art. 1, § 9.


[16] KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote
110 Criminal Law
110XVII Evidence
110XVII(T) Confessions
110k517.2 Absence or Denial of Counsel; Inadequate Representation
110k517.2(2) k. Failure to request counsel; waiver. Most Cited Cases

Police officers used improper and deliberate tactics in delaying administration of Miranda warnings to murder defendant during custodial interrogation in order to obtain incriminating statement, as factor supporting determination that defendant did not voluntarily waive his Miranda rights and that his confession was not voluntary, even though defendant did not provide full confession; detective believed interrogation would be last opportunity to question defendant before he obtained attorney, sheriff informed detective that he wanted to obtain closure, detective knew department's orders requiring him to provide warnings before questioning turned accusatory, detective constantly accused defendant of committing murders based on blood found on his pants, and detective questioned him for hours without administering warnings until defendant responded that he believed he might have committed murders. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5; West's F.S.A. Const. Art. 1, § 9.


[17] KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote
110 Criminal Law
110XVII Evidence
110XVII(T) Confessions
110k517.2 Absence or Denial of Counsel; Inadequate Representation
110k517.2(2) k. Failure to request counsel; waiver. Most Cited Cases

Police officers minimized and downplayed significance of Miranda rights once they were finally administered to murder defendant during custodial interrogation, as factor supporting determination that defendant did not voluntarily waive his Miranda rights and that his confession was not voluntary; detective stated that rights were only matter of procedure prior to administering warnings, detective lulled defendant into false sense of security by asserting that he was not arresting him at that time, detective did not immediately stop interrogation when defendant indicated hesitancy in talking, and detective reminded defendant of his earlier admissions rather than informing defendant this his prior incriminating statements could not be used against him. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5; West's F.S.A. Const. Art. 1, § 9.


[18] KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote
110 Criminal Law
110XVII Evidence
110XVII(M) Declarations
110k411 Declarations by Accused
110k412 In General
110k412(4) k. Circumstances affecting admissibility in general. Most Cited Cases

If a deliberate two-step strategy is employed in order to obtain incriminating statements from a defendant prior to administration of Miranda warnings, then the postwarning statements must be excluded unless curative measures are taken that will ensure that a reasonable person in the suspect's situation would understand the import and effect of the Miranda warning and of the Miranda waiver. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5; West's F.S.A. Const. Art. 1, § 9.


[19] KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote
110 Criminal Law
110XVII Evidence
110XVII(M) Declarations
110k411 Declarations by Accused
110k412.1 Voluntary Character of Statement
110k412.1(4) k. Interrogation and investigatory questioning. Most Cited Cases

When Miranda warnings are inserted in the midst of coordinated and continuing interrogation, they are likely to mislead and deprive a suspect of knowledge essential to his ability to understand the nature of his rights and the consequences of abandoning them. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5; West's F.S.A. Const. Art. 1, § 9.


[20] KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote
110 Criminal Law
110XVII Evidence
110XVII(T) Confessions
110k517.2 Absence or Denial of Counsel; Inadequate Representation
110k517.2(2) k. Failure to request counsel; waiver. Most Cited Cases

Circumstances surrounding murder defendant's statements both before and after administration of Miranda warnings by detective supported determination that defendant did not voluntarily waive his Miranda rights and that his confession was not voluntary, where questioning before and after warnings was conducted in same manner, in same room, with same officers, and with only very short break in between, and interrogation consisted of integrated and proximately conducted questioning. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5; West's F.S.A. Const. Art. 1, § 9.


[21] KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote
110 Criminal Law
110XVII Evidence
110XVII(T) Confessions
110k517.2 Absence or Denial of Counsel; Inadequate Representation
110k517.2(2) k. Failure to request counsel; waiver. Most Cited Cases