LANE v. STATE

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 76-2134.

Attorney(S)

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Thomas G. Murray, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant. Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Anthony C. Musto, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Edwin D. Davis, II, Legal Intern, for appellee.

Judges

PER CURIAM.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Donald Lane was convicted of robbery, loitering, and prowling in the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida. He appealed the conviction, challenging several aspects of the trial proceedings, including the voluntariness of his confession and prosecutorial conduct during opening arguments.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress the defendant's confession on the grounds that it was involuntary due to the defendant being under the influence of drugs.
Whether statements made by the prosecutor and a prosecution witness during opening argument improperly alluded to the defendant's exercise of the right to remain silent.
Whether allegedly improper prosecutorial comments made during opening argument warrant reversal despite the defense counsel's failure to object at trial.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The defendant argued that his confession was involuntary because he was under the influence of drugs at the time it was made, thus requiring suppression of the confession.
The defendant contended that prosecutorial statements during opening argument and testimony improperly referenced his silence upon initial police questioning, suggesting a violation of his right to remain silent.
The defendant claimed that certain prosecutorial comments during opening argument were improper and prejudicial.

Appellee's Arguments

The State maintained that the trial court properly found the confession voluntary, supported by substantial competent evidence, including the defendant's written confession indicating mental control.
The State argued that the challenged statements did not reference the defendant's right to remain silent but rather referred to his exculpatory denials of participation in the robbery.
The State asserted that the prosecutorial comments were proper as they outlined facts the prosecution in good faith expected to prove and that the defendant's failure to object waived the issue on appeal.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Von Horn v. State, 334 So.2d 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)	The trial court has the province to determine the voluntariness of a confession, adjudging witness credibility and weighing evidence.	Supported the principle that the trial court's finding on voluntariness is entitled to deference if supported by substantial competent evidence.
Melero v. State, 306 So.2d 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)	A finding on voluntariness must be supported by substantial competent evidence.	Reinforced the standard for reviewing voluntariness of confession, which the court found satisfied here.
Thomas v. State, 326 So.2d 413 (Fla. 1975)	Failure to object at trial generally precludes appellate review of prosecutorial misconduct claims.	Applied to bar consideration of the defendant's claim regarding prosecutorial comments made during opening argument due to lack of objection.
Paul v. State, 209 So.2d 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)	A prosecutor may outline facts he in good faith expects to prove and which are competent evidence.	Used to justify the propriety of the prosecutor's opening remarks that the defendant challenged.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court reviewed the trial court's determination that the defendant's confession was voluntary and found it supported by substantial competent evidence, including the defendant's own written confession indicating full mental faculties. The court emphasized the trial court's role in assessing witness credibility and weighing evidence regarding voluntariness.

Regarding the alleged references to the defendant's silence, the court analyzed the statements in their full context and concluded they referred to the defendant's exculpatory denials rather than an impermissible comment on his right to remain silent.

On the issue of prosecutorial comments during opening argument, the court noted the defense's failure to object at trial, which waived appellate review. Furthermore, the court found the comments proper under precedent allowing prosecutors to outline facts they expect to prove in good faith.

Holding and Implications

Affirmed.

The court upheld the convictions, rejecting the defendant's challenges to the voluntariness of his confession and prosecutorial conduct. The decision directly affects the parties by affirming the trial court's rulings but sets no new precedent beyond applying established legal standards.

Show full summary ...

DONALD LANE, APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE.

PER CURIAM.

Donald Lane appeals his conviction for robbery, loitering and prowling.

Defendant first urges as reversible error the court's denial of his motion to suppress his confession on the ground it was involuntary as he was under the influence of drugs at the time.

The determination of the issue of the voluntariness of a confession is for the trial court whose province it is to adjudge the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence. Von Horn v. State, 334 So.2d 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). This determination must be supported by substantial competent evidence. Melero v. State, 306 So.2d 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). After reviewing the record, we find that there was competent substantial evidence to sustain the trial court's conclusion that defendant's confession was freely and voluntarily given and he knowingly waived his constitutional rights. In fact, defendant's written confession reflects that he was in complete control of his mental faculties at the time he wrote it.

Defendant next contends that the prosecutor in opening argument and a prosecution witness made statements which allegedly alluded to the fact that he had remained silent when he was first detained by the police and questioned about the robbery.

Although at first glance it appears that these statements made reference to defendant's exercising his right to remain silent, when viewed and read in their proper context, it becomes readily apparent that these remarks were referring to defendant's exculpatory statements denying any participation in the robbery.

Defendant's last point is based upon allegedly improper prosecutorial comments made during opening argument.

We note that defense counsel failed to object to these comments and, therefore, this point should not be considered on appeal. See Thomas v. State, 326 So.2d 413 (Fla. 1975). We further find the statements were proper as a prosecutor may outline the facts which he, in good faith, expects to prove and which are competent for him to prove. See Paul v. State, 209 So.2d 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968).

Affirmed.