MDB v. State, 311 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). · Go Syfert
Search
MDB v. State, 311 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
20 citation events across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Hawthorne v. State (fladistctapp, 1979-12-07)
Treatment trajectory · 1975 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1975 2000 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hawthorne v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1979 · confidence medium
This basic rule of law is stated in Bran v. United States, 168 U.S. 532 , 542-543, 18 S.Ct. 183, 187 , 42 L.Ed. 568 (1897): "`But a confession, in order to be admissible must be free and voluntary; that is, must not be extracted by any sort of threats or violence, nor obtained by any direct or implied promises however slight, nor by the exertion of any improper influence. * * * A confession can never be received in evidence where the prisoner had been influenced by any threat or promise; for the law cannot measure the force of the influence used, or decide upon its effect upon the mind of the …
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Tardiff
Me. · 1977 · confidence medium
See, e. g., Grades v. Boles, 398 F.2d 409, 411-12 (4th Cir. 1968); M.D.B. v. State, 311 So.2d 399, 401 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1975); People v. Anonymous B, 56 Misc.2d 792 , 290 N.Y.S.2d 507, 511 (1968).
discussed Cited "see" Hanthorn v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See M.D.B. v. State, 311 So.2d 399 (Fla. 4th DCA1975) (confession was held invalid where it was undisputed that officers promised juvenile that he would not be charged with other offenses if he confessed).
In the Interest of M.D.B., a Child, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
74-1492.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Apr 18, 1975.
311 So. 2d 399
Walden.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

[*400] Warner S. Olds, Public Defender, and William W. Herring, Asst. Public Defender, and Neil G. Frank, Legal Intern, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Anthony J. Golden, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

WALDEN, Judge.

Defendant was adjudicated a delinquent on charges of breaking and entering, and was committed to the State Division of Youth Services. The trial court denied defendant's motion to suppress his confession, and the juvenile appeals that denial. We agree with his contentions and reverse on the basis of testimony given at the suppression hearing by the arresting officer and the juvenile.

We do not consider defendant's contention that the officer promised him he could go home if he confessed, as the officer denies such a promise; however it is undisputed that the officer promised that the juvenile would not be charged with other offenses if he confessed:

"I told [M] like I told him many times in the past; that if he helped me, I would help him; that if he knew what I was talking about, he wouldn't be charged with X amount of cases. The same little game that [M] and I have played in the past."

The juvenile verified this:

"Q Did Officer Hurt discuss any other case with you?
"A Yes.
"Q Did he make any promises or tell you it would benefit you in any way concerning these other cases?
"A Yes.
"Q What did you say exactly if you recall?
"A Exactly, I don't know, but he told me there probably wouldn't be charges brought — `all I want to do is clear up the paper work'."

It is basic that a confession, to be admissible, must

"not be extracted by any sort of threat or violence, nor be obtained by any direct or implied promise, however slight, or by the exertion of any improper influence." 13 Fla.Jur. Evidence § 248 (1957) (Emphasis added.)

A confessing defendant should be free from the influence of either hope or fear, and the confession should be excluded if the attending circumstances were calculated to delude the defendant or exert undue influence over him. Frazier v. State, 107 So.2d 16 (Fla. 1958); Harrison v. State, 152 Fla. 86, 12 So.2d 307 (Fla. 1943); State v. Chorpenning, 294 So.2d 54 (2d D.C.A. Fla. 1974); Paulk v. State, 211 So.2d 591 (2d D.C.A.Fla. 1968); Kraft v. State, 143 So.2d 863 (2d D.C.A.Fla. 1962), and Hooper v. State, 115 So.2d 769 (3d D.C.A.Fla. 1959). In Lawton v. State, 152 Fla. 821,[*401] 13 So.2d 211 (Fla. 1943) a confession was held involuntary when the defendant confessed based on the understanding he would not be prosecuted.

There is no question but that the officer here made like promises to the 14 year old defendant in return for the confession. Although defendant's age does not automatically render the confession invalid, we have noted that minority is a factor to be considered in determining voluntariness, see 87 A.L.R.2d 624 (1963).

The fact this defendant received his Miranda warnings, see Hallihan v. State, 226 So.2d 412 (1st D.C.A.Fla. 1969), does not vitiate the error committed when promises were made for a confession. Since confessions (unlike pleas) can not be bargained for, the instant confession must be suppressed.

Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.

Reversed and remanded.

OWEN, C.J., and KAPNER, LEWIS, Associate Judge, concur.