Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

695 So. 2d 686

Docket No. 88774.

State v. Marshall

STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Burt MARSHALL, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided June 5, 1997.

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1997-06-05

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[W]e emphasize that the privilege granted under section 316.066 is applicable if no Miranda warnings are given. Further, if a law enforcement officer gives any indication to a defendant that he or she must respond to questions concerning the investigation of an accident, there must be an express statement by the law enforcement official to the defendant that “this is now a criminal investigation,” followed immediately by Miranda warnings, before any statement by the defendant may be admitted. (Emphasis supplied).”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Vedner v. State, 867 So. 2d 418 - Alexander v. Penske Logistics, Inc.

Relies on State v. Norstrom · 695 So. 2d 719 - State v. Marshall · State v. Riley

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1997-06-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently April 2014

8 state decisions

60199720002010decided

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 →

¶1Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General and Fleur J. Lobree and Michael J. Neimand, Assistant Attorneys General, Miami, for Petitioner.

¶2Laurie D. Hall, Tavernier, for Respondent.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4We review State v. Marshall,695 So.2d 719 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), in which the court certified direct conflict with State v. Riley,617 So.2d 340 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, sections 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution.

¶5In construing section 316.066, Florida Statutes (Supp.1988), this Court has stated:

To clarify our decision, we emphasize that the privilege granted under section 316.066 is applicable if no Miranda warnings are given. Further, if a law enforcement officer gives any indication to a defendant that he or she must respond to questions concerning the investigation of an accident, there must be an express statement by the law enforcement official to the defendant that "this is now a criminal investigation," followed immediately by Miranda warnings, before any statement by the defendant may be admitted.

¶6State v. Norstrom,613 So.2d 437, 440-41 (Fla.1993). We cannot say that the 1991 amendments to that statute and section 316.062, Florida Statutes (Supp.1988), affect our holding in Norstrom. If the legislature had intended to eliminate the statutory requirement that drivers give accident reports to investigating officers, it would have said so in clearer language.

¶7*687 Accordingly, we approve the decision of the court below, adopt its opinion as our own, and disapprove State v. Riley.

¶8It is so ordered.

¶9KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, GRIMES, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.

/695/so2d/686 · .json · Public domain