In Goins vs. State, the Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed the circuit court’s ruling and returned the matter to the trial court instructing the circuit court to hold proceedings based on the appellate court’s decision. In this matter, the defendant pled guilty to driving below the influence, with 3 or a lot more prior convictions. The […] Published at Wed, 04 Feb 2015 03:21:33 +0000
Petitioner was convicted and sentenced for operating a motor automobile under the influence of alcohol and negligent operation of a motor vehicle. At some point in the course of the booking process, petitioner was provided written Miranda warnings and invoked his proper to stay silent. Petitioner contends that the prosecutor’s cross-examination and closing argument constituted constitutionally forbidden commentary on his post-Miranda silence. The district court’s denial of habeas relief is affirmed, where, even if the Massachusetts Appeals Court misapplied the Doyle v. Ohio rule proscribing the prosecution’s use of a defendant’s post-Miranda silence in a criminal case, any comment on the petitioner’s silence here was harmless when regarded in the context of the trial as a entire. Published at 04/07/2015
Added State Protections When drafting a motion to suppress do not neglect that states are generally permitted to enact laws that grant a defendant far more protection than is afforded in the United States Constitution. In Michigan Division of State Police vs. Sitz, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari jurisdiction and ruled that sobriety checkpoints […]
The appellate court made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law in reversing the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to suppress.
Details: An officer responded to a domestic disturbance contact, saw the defendant driving away in an automobile which matched the description of the vehicle in 911 telephone call. The officer initiated a traffic stop and ordered defendant back to the scene of the domestic incident. At the scene, the officer spoke with the girlfriend of defendant, who had initiated the 911 emergency call, and arrived at the conclusion that no laws had been broken. At the scene, the officer noticed that defendant parked his automobile “a little crooked,” that he smelled of alcohol, and that his speech was slurred. The officer arrested the defendant for DUI, and the defendant’s probation was for that reason revoked. The defendant filed a motion to suppress. The motion was denied by the trial court. The defendant appealed arguing that the Circuit Court committed reversible error because the officer had no reason to suspect a DUI from a report of a domestic disturbance
The District Court of Appeal agreed with defendant’s position and reversed the circuit court’s denial of defendant’s motion to suppress and the revocation of probation, noting that a domestic disturbance contact does not necessarily involve any crime, and nothing at all in the dispatch informed him that a crime had occurred at the residence, nor did the officer observe something that which suggested that a crime had occurred.