Black v. State
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 5977
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Black was convicted of two first-degree murders and appeals the denial of suppression for post-Miranda statements.
- Double murder outside a Broward County party occurred in 2003; Black was arrested in 2006 and interrogated in a secured room with video recording.
- Miranda warnings were administered; Black read and answered the warnings aloud and clearly indicated he did not want to speak without an attorney.
- After invoking the right to counsel with a clear “no” to talking without counsel, detectives continued questioning Black.
- The suppression court denied suppression; on appeal, the DVD of interrogation showed continued questioning after invocation; the court reversed and remanded for a new trial due to improper interrogation and nonharmless error.
- The opinion discusses applicable Miranda framework, Edwards and Davis distinctions, and the need to suppress statements obtained after invocation, despite later attempts by detectives to obtain a waiver.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did police continue interrogation after invocation of counsel? | Black clearly invoked right to counsel. | Interrogation could continue with waiver. | Yes; interrogation continued and violated Miranda. |
| Was any waiver after invocation valid under current law? | Waiver cannot be inferred from police-initiated questioning after invocation. | If initiated by defendant, waiver could be valid. | Invalid waiver; Edwards controls. |
| Were the improper statements harmless beyond a reasonable doubt? | Statements were central to the state's case. | Possible harmlessness with other evidence. | Not harmless; reversal required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (establishes right to counsel and warnings; questioning must cease upon invocation)
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) (police may not reinterrogate after an explicit right to counsel is asserted)
- Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994) (after waiver, questioning may continue until attorney is requested)
- Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980) (defines interrogation to include questions likely to elicit incriminating responses)
- State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986) (harmless-error standard for trial errors)
- Edwards, Spivey v. State, 45 So.3d 51 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (cites Miranda/ Davis framework and right to counsel)