DOUGLAS FRANKLIN WALKER, 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 first-degree murder, assault with intent to commit murder, and breaking and entering; trial court properly denied motion to suppress statements and properly restricted expert testimony on voluntariness.
The trial court properly denied appellant's motion to suppress his statements and properly restricted expert testimony regarding the voluntariness of his confession.
Appellant was charged with and convicted of first degree murder, assault with intent to commit murder, and breaking and entering a dwelling with inten…
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 Involuntary Statements cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, defendant below, was charged with and convicted of first degree murder, assault with intent to commit murder, and breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit petit larceny. He appeals his convictions and sentences. We affirm.
Appellant has raised three points on appeal. The first two points claim that the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion to suppress various statements made by him, both prior to and after his arrest in that said statements were made (1) involuntarily, (2) pursuant to illegal detention by the police and (3) without the benefit of proper Miranda warnings. The third point claims error on the part of the trial judge in restricting a psychologist-defense witness from testifying as to certain self-serving facts elicited from appellant during examination which formed a partial basis for the psychologist’s expert opinion as to the voluntariness of appellant’s statements and confession given to the police during interrogation.
After carefully reviewing the record, briefs and argument of counsel in the light of the controlling principles of law, it is our opinion that appellant’s contentions are without merit and that his convictions and sentences must be affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Dupont, 659 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…e into evidence. Department of Corrections, State of Florida v, Williams, 549 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). However, an expert may not be used as a conduit to introduce otherwise inadmissible hearsay evidence. 549 So. 2d at 1072; Walker v. State, 353 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). DuPont’s statements to the experts were hearsay and were not otherwise admissible. Consequently, the experts should not have been allowed to testify regarding the substance of these statements.…