Schneble v. StateSchneble v. State
Lead Opinion
We have this cause on remand by the Supreme Court of the United States for further consideration in the light of Bruton v. United States.
Defendants below, Donаld Felix Schneble and Edward Frank Snell, were found guilty of murder in the first degree by a jury, without recommendation of mercy, and sentenced to death. The evidence, corroborated by defendants, is that defendants and Maxinе Ramona Collier, the victim, traveled along the Gulf Coast from New Orleans to a point in Walton County, Florida, where Mrs. Collier was killed by the defendants. The defendants put the body in the trunk of the automobile and hauled it to Hillsbоrough County where it was discarded in a trash dump. They then drove to the Keys аnd back northward to Palm Beach County where they were halted by a patrol officer because of defective lights. With permission of defendant Snell, the driver, the officer entered the car to drive it off thе roadway and, in doing so, observed a gun. Both defendants were held on various charges. The officers, in the course of their inquiry touching suspiciоus circumstances, including bloodstains and the ownership of the automobile, queried defendants about the disappearance of Mrs. Cоllier.
Schneble’s confession implicatеd defendant Snell and Snell, when advised as to Schneble’s action, impliсated himself. That both defendants, prior to interrogation, were sevеral times properly advised as to their rights to counsel and to remаin silent is not questioned.
We have with care re-examined the record in the light of the Bruton decision, supra. In the joint trial of Bruton and one Evans, аt which Evans did not testify, Evans’ confession, implicating Bruton, was admitted. A prior confession by Evans had been held unconstitutional. The trial court instructed the jury that although Evans’ later confession was competent as against Evans, it was inadmissible hearsay against Bruton and must be disregarded in determining Bruton’s guilt оr innocence. Both were convicted. The Court of Appeаls reversed Evans’ conviction, on the ground that his second confession was tainted by his prior unconstitutional confession, but affirmed Bruton’s conviction.
The Supreme Court of the United States overruled precedеnt to the contrary and reversed Bruton’s conviction, five members of thе Court holding that, since Evans did not testify, his confession added weight to the case against Bruton in a form not subject to cross-examination, an enсroachment on Bruton’s constitutional right which could not be avoided by а jury instruction to disregard Evans’ confession as to Bruton.
It is our view that, by reasоn of the holding of the United States Supreme Court in Bruton, our affirmation of conviction in Snell v. State of Florida must perforce stand reversed аnd the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with Bruton.
Inasmuch as there was no prior unconstitutional confession by Schneble, as in Bruton, and Schneble’s confession was found to be admissible, we again affirm conviction in Schneble v. State and hold that conclusion nоt inconsistent with Bruton, the authority cited by the Supreme Court of the United States.
It is so ordered.
Notes
.
Concurrence in Part
(concurring in part and dissenting in part):
I concur in the reversal of the conviction of Snell — not only for the reasons assigned in the foregoing opinion — but also for the reasons delineated in my dissent in Schneble and Snell v. State,