THEO. MACK WALKER
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting confessions and that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient for conviction.
Appellant was convicted of a crime and appealed, raising issues regarding the admissibility of confessions and the sufficiency of evidence. The trial …
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 Sufficiency Of Circumstantial Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was informed against, tried, convicted and sentenced by the Criminal Court of Record of Hillsborough County, Florida, to serve a period of years in the state prison at hard labor. He has per*477fected his appeal to this Court, and several questions are presented for adjudication.
It is contended that certain confessions alleged to have been made by the appellant, jointly with another, should not have been admitted as evidence until the corpus delicti had been prima facie established by independent testimony. Several cases are cited to sustain this contention. We have read the evidence and conclude that sufficient testimony of the existence of the corpus delicti had been offered prior to the introduction of the confession.
It is next contended that the appellant had been drinking, was taken into custody and placed in jail and deprived of the privilege of securing an attorney. There is some evidence tending to support the contention, but the officers testified that the appellant, prior to signing the challenged confession, did not request the services of an attorney. The lower court resolved this disputed question of fact against the appellant, and there is substantial evidence in the record to sustain his conclusions. Officers in their zeal to enforce the criminal laws are bound to recognize that men charged with crime have fundamental rights that must be safeguarded, and among these is representation by counsel. These fundamental rights must be respected and observed when enforcing the criminal laws.
It is next contended that the .evidence is circumstantial, uncorroborated and legally insufficient to sustain a conviction. In the light of this contention we have carefully examined the record, read the able briefs filed by counsel and oral argument has heard at the bar of this court. We fail to find error in the *478record and the judgment appealed from accordingly is hereby affirmed.
BROWN, C. J., WHITFIELD, TERRELL, BUFORD, CHAPMAN, THOMAS and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Patterson v. State, 157 Fla. 304 (Fla. 1946)…such statements as he might make could be used against him. We fully recognize that a person charged with crime had certain fundamental rights which must be protected, and that among these is the right to representation by counsel. Walker v. State, 150 Fla. 476, 8 So. (2nd) 22. We do not understand the law to be, however, that under the circumstances shown here the defendant immunizes himself against the effect of prior incriminating admissions freely and voluntarily given simply by reason of the fact that…