Brancaccio v. StateBrancaccio v. State
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Farmer, Gunther, Gross
The principal issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in admitting a confession into evidence. Our review of the record discloses that there was evidence that this juvenile‘s confession was voluntarily given. The police administered Miranda warnings before actual questioning began. His age, intelligence, education, and background support the trial court‘s finding that he had the mental capacity to understand what he was doing and that his waiver of Miranda rights was knowing and voluntary. The record supports the finding that the police did not use any improper coercion in obtaining the confession, that they did not promise him anything in exchange for the confession.1 While his parents were not notified until after the confession, and he did ask if they had been called before he confessed, the facts support the trial court‘s finding that he voluntarily confessed despite their absence. He executed a written waiver form before actual questioning began.
Ultimately the question whether a confession is voluntary presents a legal issue to an appellate court, one that is determined de novo under federal constitutional principles. See Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 104, 109, 106 S.Ct. 445, 88 L.Ed.2d 405 (1985) (ultimate issue of voluntariness is legal question requiring independent federal determination); Ramirez v. State, 739 So.2d 568, 575 (Fla.1999) (legal question of voluntariness of confession determined by totality of circumstances), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1131, 120 S.Ct. 970, 145 L.Ed.2d 841 (2000); W.M. v. State, 585 So.2d 979 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (same). Applying these standards, the confession survives appellate constitutional scrutiny.
For a juvenile‘s confession, the relevant circumstances include: (a) the
In this case, defendant inquired (before the waiver of rights was given) as to whether his parents had been notified. The police responded by saying: “it‘s being taken care of.”2 In fact the police had no intention of calling his parents, for fear they might disturb evidence at the boy‘s home. We recognize that:
“[i]t is simply inappropriate for the police to make a representation intended to lull a young defendant into a false sense of security and calculated to delude him as to his true position at the very moment that the Miranda warnings are about to be administered.”
Ramirez, 739 So.2d at 577. In this instance, however, there was no such police conduct. We do agree with defense counsel‘s argument that the police were less than completely honest in their response to this inquiry. Nevertheless, the audio tape supports the finding that in substance defendant did not actually ask for his parents to be present and that he voluntarily confessed anyway.3 We have concluded from our own review of the audiotape that this particular disingenuousness did not affect the voluntariness of the waiver and confession.4
As for defendant‘s claim of error in the jury learning that the court had denied his pretrial motion to suppress the confession, we conclude that there has been no showing of error. The issue as to whether police have complied with the parental notification statute5 was a legal question for the court in deciding whether to permit the confession to be adduced as evidence before the jury. The record supports the state‘s assertion that the court fully permitted defendant to litigate the factual question of voluntariness at trial. In the court‘s final instructions to the jury, the court clearly told the jury that they were to determine the confession‘s voluntariness based on the totality of the circumstances.
AFFIRMED.
GUNTHER and GROSS, JJ., concur.