Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Randall v. State
Citations: 691 So. 2d 573; 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 3767; 1997 WL 169520Docket: No. 96-2587
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; April 11, 1997; Florida; State Appellate Court
The appeal concerns the denial of a motion to suppress statements made by Anthony Dunshay Randall during police interrogation, following his arrest for robbery. Randall acknowledges that he was informed of his Miranda rights and waived them. However, he argues that due to his age of seventeen at the time of arrest, his waiver should either be recorded or at least documented by a signature on a waiver of rights card, as stipulated by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.111(d)(4). This rule requires that waivers made out of court be in writing with two attesting witnesses. The court referenced the precedent set in Johnson v. State, which established that an out-of-court waiver must be signed by at least two witnesses. It noted that Florida courts typically do not reverse decisions for procedural noncompliance unless it has resulted in prejudice to the defendant. In a similar case, Hogan v. State, it was determined that failure to obtain a signed waiver does not necessitate reversal if there is no demonstrated harm. Despite the absence of a written waiver or explicit waiver on the recorded statement, the tape begins with Detective Amott stating that he read Randall his rights, and Randall waived those rights. Additionally, Randall affirmed his intent to tell the truth without disputing that his rights were explained or waived. The court concluded that the lack of a written waiver did not result in prejudice, particularly given Randall's prior experience with the legal system. The ruling affirmed the trial court's decision and reminded the Orlando Police Department of the necessity of adhering to procedural requirements.