Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

441 So. 2d 1182

State v. LeCroy

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided December 28, 1983

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1983-12-28

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently December 1984

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“"Detective Browning: All right. For the record, if you understand these rights, how about signing the card for me, indicating that you understand. For the record, Mr. LeCroy is now signing the rights card. Okay, continuing. Mr. LeCroy, the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Department is presently investigating the circumstances surrounding a double shooting which allegedly occurred on Sunday, January 4th, 1981 in the Brown's Farm Hunting Area. I have reason to believe that you have knowledge pertaining to this incident. I would like for you to tell me, in your own words, in the order in which they occurred, the circumstances through which you were involved in the incident, either prior to, during or immediately after the incident. Although I would like this statement to be in your own words, I may interrupt your chain of thought in order to ask you specific questions about certain circumstances as they develop in the statement. This statement is taken primarily in order to refresh your memory at the time you may be called upon to testify, if and when this matter goes to court. If you would, at this time, I would like for you to tell me what happened... . (Emphasis supplied.)”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 461 So. 2d 88 - State v. LeCroy

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · State v. LeCroy

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1983-12-28

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1OPINION ON REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

¶2Pursuant to Rule 9.030(a)(2)(A)(v) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, we certify to the Supreme Court of Florida as a matter of great public interest the following question:

Where statements made by appellants when measured by traditional factual tests are found to have been given voluntarily and without coercion or inducement, they may nonetheless be rendered legally involuntary and therefore subject to being suppressed under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 [86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694] (1966) where, immediately following the reading of the Mirandawarnings, the following statement is also read:
This statement is taken primarily in order to refresh your memory at the time you may be called to testify, if and when this matter goes to court.

¶3Additionally, we emphasize that the .38 calibre pistol has not been suppressed as to Cleo LeCroy as it was Jon LeCroy⅛ statement which led to its discovery. Thus, the trial court properly suppressed it only as to Jon LeCroy.

¶4With these modifications we adhere to our original opinion, 435 So.2d 354, and deny rehearing.

HERSEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.ANDREWS, ROBERT LANCE, Associate Judge, concurs specially with opinion.
/441/so2d/1182 · .json · Public domain