From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mathieu v. State

Supreme Court of Florida, En Banc
Apr 4, 1931
101 Fla. 94 (Fla. 1931)

Opinion

Opinion filed April 4, 1931.

A writ of error to the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; F. M. Robles, Judge.

Reversed.

R. G. Tittsworth, for Plaintiff in Error;

Fred H. Davis, Atty. Gen. and Roy Campbell, Asst., for Defendant in Error.


In this case the State relied largely upon alleged confessions of the accused for a conviction. Without such alleged confessions the proof would be entirely inadequate to sustain a verdict. Upon careful consideration of all evidence in this case we are convinced that the alleged confessions were obtained by unlawful methods commonly known as the third degree; that they were not freely and voluntarily made and should have been excluded. For this reason, the judgment should be reversed upon authority of the opinion in the case of Deiterle vs. State, 98 Fla. 739, 124 So. 47. It is so ordered.

Reversed.

BUFORD, C.J., AND WHITFIELD AND BROWN, J.J., AND HUTCHISON, Circuit Judge, concur.

ELLIS AND TERRELL, J.J., dissent.

DAVIS, J., disqualified.


Summaries of

Mathieu v. State

Supreme Court of Florida, En Banc
Apr 4, 1931
101 Fla. 94 (Fla. 1931)
Case details for

Mathieu v. State

Case Details

Full title:RAYMOND MATHIEU, Plaintiff in Error, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Defendant in…

Court:Supreme Court of Florida, En Banc

Date published: Apr 4, 1931

Citations

101 Fla. 94 (Fla. 1931)
133 So. 550

Citing Cases

Chambers v. Florida

introduced by the State, was sufficient to show that these confessions were only made after such constantly…

Chambers, et al., v. State

es introduced by the State, was sufficient to show that these confessions were only made after such…