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.
State v. Raines
Citations: 944 So. 2d 421; 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 18750; 2006 WL 3228430Docket: No. 5D04-2706
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; November 8, 2006; Florida; State Appellate Court
The State appeals a trial court order that suppressed statements made by Michael Thomas Raines, arguing that misleading tactics were employed regarding his legal counsel, David Smith. Raines cross-appeals, asserting that the trial court wrongly denied his motion to dismiss due to State interference with his right to present a witness. The court affirms the cross-appeal but reverses the suppression order. The case involves a shooting incident on February 20, 2002, where Raines admitted to a deputy in Nashville, Indiana, that he shot someone in Florida in self-defense and sought to turn himself in. Following this, Raines sought legal advice from Attorney Roy Graham, who contacted Attorney David Smith. Despite the attorney-client privilege preventing disclosure of specific details, it was established that Detective Washburn of the Cocoa Beach police wanted to speak with Raines. Smith contacted Washburn, who indicated he needed to urgently speak to Raines regarding a homicide investigation, but did not label Raines as a suspect. After discussing the situation with Raines, Smith facilitated a call with Washburn. During this interview, Raines admitted to shooting the victim, paralleling his prior admission to the deputy. Smith later acknowledged that, despite not being explicitly told Raines was a suspect, it became clear during the conversation that Raines had committed the act. Raines contended that his statements were a direct result of Washburn's deception regarding the investigation's nature. He argued that had Smith been aware of Raines' true status, he would have advised him to remain silent. The trial court focused on the legality of an officer making misrepresentations to a lawyer to facilitate an interview with a client. Raines confessed to the killing to Indiana police and was represented by an attorney during the interview. The argument that his confession should be suppressed due to a lack of disclosure by the Cocoa Beach police detective is rejected. Unlike Haliburton v. State, where police deception impeded attorney-client communication, Raines’s lawyer was fully involved, and no expectation of complete disclosure from police exists. Allegations of misconduct against the detective do not constitute a constitutional violation. The court finds that the attorney had sufficient information to advise Raines based on his prior confession. Any claims of misconduct regarding the attorney’s failure to disclose Raines’s status as a suspect do not warrant suppression of the confession. The assertion that Raines's self-defense claim could exonerate him is deemed meritless; only factual evidence could do so, and counsel could not reasonably rely on this claim. The decision is affirmed in part and reversed in part, with concurring and dissenting opinions noted.