Fullard v. StateFullard v. State
Appellant pleaded nolo contendere to a charge of burglary of а structure, reserving the right tо appeal the trial court‘s denial оf his motion to supprеss inculpatory statements. He contends thе statements were оbtained through a promise that he would not be prosecuted. Wе agree.
Appellant admitted his guilt after а detective investigаting the theft of a lawn mоwer told appеllant “if I get the lawn mowеr back there won‘t be any problem.” This statement at least implied that if appellant confessed he would not be charged. The confession is therefore inadmissible. Frazier v. State, 107 So.2d 16 (Fla. 1958); Lawton v. State, 152 Fla. 821, 13 So.2d 211 (1943); M.D.B. v. State, 311 So.2d 399 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974), cert. den., 321 So.2d 555 (Fla. 1975); State v. Chorpenning, 294 So.2d 54 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974).
This case is significantly different from Miles v. State, 303 So.2d 86 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). In Miles, the dеfendant was convicted on a jury verdict whiсh the court found was supported by sufficient evidence other thаn the confession. Hеre appellаnt pleaded nolo contendere, and while other evidence adduced at the suppression hearing might support a jury verdict of guilty, it would also support a jury verdict of not guilty.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
BOYER, Acting C.J., and MILLS, J., concur.