All Courts |
Federal Courts |
US Federal District Court Cases |
District Court of Appeal of Florida |
2011-08 |
-
ROTHENBERG, J. The sole issue raised in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress his pre-Miranda
1 statements. Because the record fully supports the trial court’s finding that the statements were spontaneously uttered and not the product of the functional equivalent of a police interrogation, we affirm. See Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 301, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980); Rodriguez v. State, 906 So.2d 1082, 1091 (Fla. 3d DCA2004).Affirmed.
. Miranda v. Atizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).
Document Info
Docket Number: No. 3D10-563
Citation Numbers: 99 So. 3d 549
Judges: Rothenberg, Salter, Wells
Filed Date: 8/3/2011
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 8/26/2021