Outcome n/a Florida 2011

Baldwin DROUT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee

Florida District Court of Appeal · August 3, 2011 · Docket No. 3D10-563

99 So. 3d 549

Syllabus

Baldwin DROUT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. No. 3D10-563. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. Aug. 3, 2011. Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Harvey J. Sepler, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Heidi Milan Caballero, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before WELLS, C.J., and ROTHENBERG and SALTER, JJ.

Full Opinion (581 characters)

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 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).

Source: Caselaw Access Project (Harvard Law School). This page is informational and is not legal advice.