State v. Pressley
State v. Pressley
Opinion of the Court
This is an appeal brought by the state under authority of Rule 6.3, Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A., and § 924.071, Fla. Stat., F.S.A., from a pretrial order which granted defendant Nathaniel Pressley’s motion to suppress the evidence of his alleged confession. The alleged confession, evi
The purpose of a motion to suppress a confession is to determine whether the confession offered is so clearly tainted with illegality that it may not be offered to the finder of fact.
The order suppressing the evidence of the oral confession is reversed and the cause remanded.
. See Annot. Admissibility of Pretrial Confession in a Criminal Case—1 L.Ed. 2d 1735; 4 L.Ed.2d 1833; 12 L.Ed.2d 1340; 16 D.Ed.2d 1294; 22 L.Ed.2d 872. The usual legal point in issue is the vol-untariness of the purported confession. The same issue is also the usual one raised during trial. See, e. g., Bates v. State, 78 Fla. 672, 84 So. 373 (1919).
. This is an issue for the jury. Kirby v. State, 44 Fla. 81, 32 So. 836 (1902) ; cases cited at 3 Wharton’s Criminal Evidence § 971 (12th ed. 1955) ; and see Walker v. State, Fla.App.1969, 219 So. 2d 707, 708.
. Cf. case cited at 35 Fla.Jur., Witnesses, § 260, and 3 Wharton § 971.
. Morris v. State, 100 Fla. 850, 130 So. 582, 586 (1930).
. See Rosenkrantz v. Hall, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 518.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.