Bannister v. State
132 So. 3d 267
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- D’Andre Bannister was convicted of second-degree murder, aggravated child abuse, and kidnapping after his four-year-old stepson suffered fatal blunt-force injuries while in Bannister’s care.
- Medical experts testified injuries were inconsistent with a fall and showed multiple blunt-force impacts at different healing stages; defense claimed the child fell from a mango tree.
- Bannister was forcibly removed from a motel room by SWAT, handcuffed, then later uncuffed and interviewed in the motel by plainclothes detectives; detectives told him he was free to leave and he ultimately drove home.
- Detectives read an abbreviated Miranda warning at the start; Bannister nodded but did not verbally waive; he asked the officers to stop at one point and the court suppressed statements made after that request.
- Trial court denied suppression of the initial statements, refused to give jury a specific read-back instruction when jurors asked for depositions and a video date, and denied Bannister’s motion for judgment of acquittal.
- On appeal, the court affirmed: it held the interview was non-custodial at its inception, read-back instructions were not required given the jury’s questions, and the State sufficiently excluded the mango-tree hypothesis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bannister was in custody for Miranda purposes during the motel interview | State: interview was non-custodial; detectives told Bannister he was free to leave and removed handcuffs before questioning | Bannister: prior SWAT entry, handcuffing, removal of children and accusatory setting rendered interview custodial and required Miranda warnings | Court held interview was non-custodial at inception (totality of circumstances favored non-custody); suppression properly limited to post-request-to-stop statements |
| Adequacy / necessity of Miranda warnings | State: warnings not required because no custody; even if read they were adequate | Bannister: warnings insufficient and required because he was effectively deprived of freedom | Court did not reach sufficiency because it found no custody at inception; warnings not legally required |
| Whether trial court erred by not instructing jury it could request read-backs | Bannister: court should have told jurors they could request read-backs when jurors asked questions during deliberations | State: jurors asked for depositions / facts, not a read-back of specific trial testimony; judge properly answered | Court held no error: jury requested depositions and a video date (fact question), not read-backs of trial testimony, so no read-back instruction required |
| Whether judgment of acquittal should have been granted because State failed to negate reasonable hypothesis (fall from mango tree) | Bannister: injuries could have resulted from a fall from the mango tree; reasonable hypothesis of innocence | State: expert and forensic evidence and Bannister’s inconsistent statement (palm tree) undermined fall theory | Court held State presented sufficient evidence to reject the mango-tree hypothesis and denied acquittal; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ramirez v. State, 739 So.2d 568 (Fla. 1999) (factors for custodial interrogation analysis)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (Miranda warnings required for custodial interrogation)
- Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652 (U.S. 2004) (two-part custody inquiry — circumstances and whether a reasonable person would feel free to leave)
- Howes v. Fields, 565 U.S. 499 (U.S. 2012) (custody is a term of art tied to coercion risk)
- State v. C.F., 798 So.2d 751 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (four-factor test for custody: summons, purpose/place/manner, confrontation with evidence, told free to leave)
- Hazuri v. State, 91 So.3d 836 (Fla. 2012) (trial court must not mislead jurors about read-backs and should inform them a read-back is possible)