WHATDLY PETIT v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 19-3875

Petit was indicted for first-degree murder for a 2015 nightclub shooting; convicted by jury and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Before trial Petit moved to suppress statements from a recorded BCSO interview about his whereabouts; dispute focused on whether he validly waived Miranda after hesitating and the detective saying “You gotta say it.”
On the recording Petit made a nonverbal gesture when asked if he wanted to talk, was asked “Yes?” and then said “Yes,” and later (≈3.5 minutes) invoked his right to counsel.
At the suppression hearing the court reviewed the recording, credited the detective’s interpretation, and denied the motion to suppress.
At trial the State relied on inside and outside surveillance footage, two witnesses who identified Petit from video, a security officer’s ID (distinctive footwear), a cousin’s ID of both Petit and a white vehicle, and cell‑tower records placing Petit near the club; Petit’s acquittal motions were denied.
Petit appealed arguing (inter alia) erroneous denial of the suppression motion and insufficiency of the evidence; the Fourth District affirmed on all issues.

Issue	Petit’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Whether Petit’s post‑arrest statements should have been suppressed for lack of a voluntary, knowing Miranda waiver	Petit: initial nonverbal hesitation plus the detective’s “You gotta say it” made the subsequent “Yes” equivocal and not a valid waiver	State: the pause reflected consideration; detective’s followup elicited a clear, unequivocal “Yes”; totality shows waiver	Denied. Court found a valid, voluntary waiver under the totality of circumstances; “You gotta say it” was not coercive and no further clarification was required
Whether the evidence was legally insufficient (motions for judgment of acquittal)	Petit: outside footage was grainy and IDs were unreliable, so evidence did not prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt	State: two witnesses identified Petit on inside footage, the security officer and cousin tied Petit to the scene/vehicle, and phone records placed him nearby	Denied. Court held competent, substantial evidence supported conviction when viewed in light most favorable to the State

Backus v. State, 864 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (defer to trial court factual findings on suppression)
Barger v. State, 923 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (treats equivocal verbal/nonverbal responses and necessity of clarification when waiver ambiguous)
Madeus v. State, 244 So. 3d 1095 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (officer must inquire further after ambiguous/equivocal waiver)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda warning and waiver principles)
Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (1986) (waiver requires knowing and intelligent relinquishment)
Beasley v. State, 774 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 2000) (standard for judgment of acquittal and jury inference rule)
Pagan v. State, 830 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 2002) (competent, substantial evidence standard)
Bush v. State, 295 So. 3d 179 (Fla. 2020) (clarifies sufficiency standard applies in all cases)