BENOIT BALTHAZAR, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Standard Of Proof (Preponderance Of The Evidence) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm defendant’s conviction and apply the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof for evaluating the voluntariness of the defendant’s confession.
The preponderance of the evidence standard has been generally applied in Florida cases where the voluntariness of a defendant’s confession is at issue. See McDole v. State, 283 So. 2d 553 (Fla.1973). We apply it here where the defendant is alleged to have a limited understanding of English. We agree with the state’s assertion that although its burden in proving voluntariness is a heavy one in such circumstances, the standard of proof does not change from a preponderance of the evidence standard to a clear and convincing one. See DeCo-ningh v. State, 433 So. 2d 501, 503 (Fla. 1983); Rodriguez v. State, 287 So. 2d 395, 396-97 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973).
GLICKSTEIN, WALDEN and STONE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Benoit Balthazar v. State, 549 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 1989)…BARKETT, Justice. We have for review Balthazar v. State, 533 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), because of apparent conflict with Acosta v. State, 519 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 529 So. 2d 695 (Fla.1988). Our jurisdiction is discretionary.1 The issue presented is whether the state must demonstrate the volun…
Authorities Cited
- McDOLE v. State, 283 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1973)
- DeCONINGH v. State, 433 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1983)
- Rodriguez v. State, 287 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)