Legal Opinion

Snead v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided October 28, 2005No. 5D04-4084PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMonaco, J.

John Snead seeks a new trial with respect to the judgment and sentence meted out after he was convicted of two counts of arson of an occupied structure. He argues that he is entitled to this relief because law enforcement officers questioned him and obtained a confession without first warning him pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). We affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion for new trial because the interrogation was not custodial.

Miranda warnings are intended to protect citizens who are in custody from being coerced into making…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Connor v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 2001
  3. Ramirez v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1999
  4. McNamara v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1978
  5. Caso v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1988

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Bannister v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2014
  2. State v. MyersDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2015
  3. State v. FigueroaDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2014
  4. State v. PerezDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2011
  5. MELANIE EAM v. STATE OF FLORIDADistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2020

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API