104 So. 3d 1123
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Appellant challenges three convictions for attempted voluntary manslaughter and challenges the denial of his motion to suppress.
- Detectives interrogated appellant after he invoked his right to counsel during a Miranda warning.
- Detectives told appellant they wanted to protect him and to hear his side of the story; interrogation continued after invocation.
- The trial court denied suppression, finding appellant reinitiated contact after requesting counsel, and waived rights.
- The appellate standard: de novo review of legal application to historical facts; findings must be supported by competent substantial evidence.
- Because interrogation continued after invocation, the confession was the product of interrogation and should have been suppressed; the error was not harmless and convictions reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether interrogation after invocation of counsel violated Miranda. | Appellant: interrogation continued after invocation; confession inadmissible. | State: suppression proper only if interrogation continued; timing ambiguous. | Interrogation continued after invocation; confession suppressed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (U.S. 1980) (defines interrogation to include actions likely to elicit incriminating response)
- Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (U.S. 1975) (scrupulously honor request to cut off questioning until counsel can be obtained)
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1981) (reinitiation of contact after counsel request requires waiver by defendant)
- Cuervo v. State, 967 So.2d 155 (Fla. 2007) (officers’ conduct after invocation can be interrogation if reasonably likely to elicit a response)
- Moss v. State, 60 So.3d 540 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (ongoing interrogation that never paused; no reinitiation by defendant)
- Traylor v. State, 596 So.2d 957 (Fla. 1992) (once lawyer is requested, no reinitiation unless lawyer present)
- Sapp v. State, 690 So.2d 581 (Fla. 1997) (valid waiver only if individual reinitiates contact after right to counsel)
- Ross v. State, 45 So.3d 403 (Fla. 2010) (harmless error standard for suppression rulings)
- DiGuilio v. State, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986) (harmless error framework for evaluating suppression errors)
- Hall v. State, — So.3d (Fla. 2012) (appellate review of suppression findings and legal application)