¶1Defendant was convicted of possession of a stolen motor vehicle and appeals. We reverse. Defendant raises four points. We find it necessary to comment only upon one point which relates to the standards set forth in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed. 2d 694 (1966). Defendant was taken into custody and questioned regarding his possession of an automobile that police suspected of being stolen. While in the custody of and under interrogation by police defendant admitted guilt. No Miranda warning or any other warning was given until the actual arrest was made. We find that the admission into evidence of defendant’s admission of guilt was error. This was clearly a statement in response to a custodial interrogation without any warning or advice regarding applicable constitutional rights. The court should have excluded defendant’s admissions. The judgment is vacated.
334 So. 2d 175
Pelham v. State
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Decided June 11, 1976
District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1976-06-11
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1976-06-11
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently August 2000
5 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →