BOAST LASTER, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Affirmed conviction for rape where trial court properly examined voluntariness of confession under pre-Miranda standards, and Miranda does not apply retroactively to 1964 conviction.
Miranda v. Arizona does not apply retroactively to confessions obtained before the Miranda decision, and a trial court's examination of voluntariness under pre-Miranda standards satisfies constitutional requirements.
[1] Miranda v. …
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was convicted of rape in 1964 and sentenced to life imprisonment. He challenged the admission of incriminating statements he allegedly made,…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Rape cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment following a jury verdict finding him guilty of rape in 1964. Pursuant to motion, an appeal under the authority of Baggett v. Wainwright, Fla.1969, 229 So.2d 239 has been permitted from the final judgment and is the subject matter of these proceedings. The appellant contends that the trial court committed error in permitting into evidence the introduction of certain incriminating statements allegedly made, in violation of his United States constitutional rights in that said statements failed to meet the test laid down in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694. We affirm.
At the time of the trial, the trial judge made a full examination as to the volun-tariness of the appellant’s extra-judicial confession, which is fully supported in the record and was consistent with the authority applicable at the time of trial. See: Nickels v. State, 90 Fla. 659, 106 So. 479; Dawson v. State, Fla.1962, 139 So.2d 408; Montgomery v. State, Fla.1965, 176 So.2d 331; Moffett v. State, Fla.App.1965, 179 *30So.2d 408; Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U. S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882. Further, it has been clearly held that Miranda v. Arizona, supra, is not to be applied retroactively. Lawson v. State, Fla.App.1968, 215 So.2d 790; Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882.
Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the verdict, final judgment and sentence here under review be and the same is hereby affirmd.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719 (U.S. 1966)
- Baggett v. Louie L. Wainwright, 229 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 1969)
- Nickels v. State, 106 So. 479 (Fla. 1925)
- Montgomery v. State, 176 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 1965)
- Sie Dawson v. State, 139 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 1962)
- Moffett v. State, 179 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Reuel Lawson v. State, 215 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)