 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
McNamee v. State6/29/2005
ver, that section simply requires notification to the parents when a child is in custody. The purpose of the statute is to advise the parents of a juvenile's whereabouts. See Villar v. State, 441 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).
Here, both parents knew at all times when the defendant was at the police station. They both had multiple opportunities to speak to the defendant before the first Saturday interview, again before the second Saturday interview, and once again between the Saturday and Sunday interviews. After considering all of the testimony at the motion to suppress hearing, the trial court specifically found neither the son nor the mother requested to speak with one another during the Sunday interview. We hold the trial court correctly concluded the parental notification statute was not violated.
The defendant raises two additional concerns. He suggests he was denied his right to counsel. And, he argues he was improperly coerced into confessing by the detective 's references to the Bible. With respect to the defendant's suggestion that he requested to speak with counsel, the trial court made a factual finding that the defendant never made an unequivocal request for counsel. When a suspect's request is ambiguous or equivocal, the police do not have a duty to clarify the suspect's intent before proceeding with the interrogation. State v. Owen, 696 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 1997).
On the issue of law enforcement's reference to the Bible, we find no improper conduct on the part of law enforcement. The detectives had noted clothing belonging to the defendant that related to a religious group with which the defendant was affiliated. The defendant's father encouraged his son to tell the truth. Then, during the Sunday interview, the detective read a short passage from the Bible, and told him, "the truth shall set you free." It was at this point the defendant stated, "I did it." "I killed two people." The record simply does not support that law enforcement's religious references improperly coerced the defendant's confession, rendering it inadmissible. See Smithers v. State, 826 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 2002).
The record and the case law support the trial court's determination that the defendant's confession was knowing and voluntary. We therefore affirm his convictions and sentence.
WARNER and GROSS, JJ., concur.
|