Deviney v. State
112 So. 3d 57
| Fla. | 2013Background
- Deviney was convicted of first-degree murder of Delores Futrell; jury recommended death 10-2; trial court imposed death sentence.
- DNA under Futrell’s right hand fingernails matched Deviney; CODIS matched him; police sought DNA sample and interviewed Deviney at station.
- During interrogation, Deviney was told he was free to leave; Miranda warnings given after arrival; he later invoked right to remain silent in multiple emphatic ways.
- Detectives continued questioning after alleged invocation and after taking a DNA sample; Deviney eventually confessed to police and to his mother.
- Deviney moved to suppress the confession as involuntary due to improper handling of his invocation; the trial court denied suppression.
- This direct appeal challenges the Miranda violation and seeks reversal and remand for new capital trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did police scrupulously honor the invocation to remain silent? | Deviney’s clear ‘I’m done’ invocations ceased questioning. | State contends invocations were equivocal and questioning could continue. | Conviction reversed; interrogation not scrupulously honored. |
| Was Deviney’s confession voluntary and admissible? | Confession coerced by police after unwarranted continuation. | Confession voluntary; invocation did not terminate interrogation. | Confession not voluntary; admissibility rejected. |
| Was the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt? | Admissible evidence sufficed to convict irrespective of confession. | Confession was a key, prejudicial element. | Error not harmless; reversal required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (establishes warnings and voluntary-ness standard for custodial interrogations)
- Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (U.S. 1994) (clarifies equivocal vs unequivocal invocation and continued questioning)
- Cuervo v. State, 967 So.2d 155 (Fla. 2007) (state-level application of Miranda warnings and custody analysis)
- Owen II, 696 So.2d 715 (Fla.1997) (equivocal invocation and continuation rule in Florida Miranda)
- Pierre v. State, 22 So.3d 759 (Fla.4th DCA 2009) (equivocal invocation and whether police must clarify in interrogation)
- Kasel, 488 N.W.2d 706 (Iowa 1992) (departure from noncustodial vs custodial interrogation and invocation treatment)