Traylor v. State
1992 WL 4873, 596 So.2d 957 (1992)
Rule of Law:
The Florida Constitution provides independent and potentially broader protections against self-incrimination (Article I, Section 9) and for the right to counsel (Article I, Section 16) than the U.S. Constitution. Article I, Section 9 requires Miranda-type warnings and, once a suspect personally invokes the right to counsel, all police-initiated interrogation on any offense must cease until counsel is present. Article I, Section 16 right to counsel attaches upon formal charge or first appearance but is charge-specific and requires informing the defendant of their right to counsel.
Facts:
- Tina Nagy was found stabbed to death in her Jacksonville apartment on June 7, 1980.
- Traylor had threatened Nagy's life prior to her murder, and his hair was found on her body, with his bloody handprint found on a wall near her body.
- Debra Beason was found stabbed and strangled in Birmingham, Alabama, on August 5, 1980.
- Traylor was arrested by Alabama police for the Beason murder on August 6, 1980, under the name Jason Riley.
- At a preliminary hearing on August 18, 1980, Traylor requested and received a court-appointed lawyer, Pete Johnson, for the Alabama murder charge.
- On August 20, 1980, Pete Johnson told Traylor not to speak with the police and instructed Alabama police not to talk to his client.
- On August 22, 1980, Detective Warren of the Jacksonville police, unaware of Johnson's instructions or appointment, initiated questioning of Traylor regarding both murders after advising him of his Miranda rights and obtaining a written waiver.
- During this questioning, Traylor confessed orally and in writing to Nagy's murder in Florida and orally to Beason's murder in Alabama.
Procedural Posture:
- On June 11, 1980, John Edward Traylor was charged by information with second-degree murder for Tina Nagy's death in Florida.
- On August 6, 1980, Traylor was arrested by Alabama police and later formally charged with Debra Beason's murder in Alabama.
- On August 18, 1980, Traylor requested and received court-appointed counsel for the Alabama charge at a preliminary hearing.
- Traylor was tried and convicted of second-degree murder for the Alabama crime, Riley v. State, 501 So.2d 551 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986).
- In March 1983, Traylor was temporarily returned to Florida and charged by indictment with first-degree murder for the Nagy killing.
- Prior to his Florida trial, Traylor moved to suppress the confessions to both crimes in the Florida trial court, alleging violations of his state and federal self-incrimination and right to counsel.
- The Florida trial court denied Traylor's motion to suppress.
- The confessions were admitted into evidence at the Florida trial, and the jury found Traylor guilty of second-degree murder.
- The Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, finding that Traylor's federal Sixth Amendment right to counsel had attached to the Alabama crime, and the Miranda warning was insufficient for his federal Sixth Amendment right on the Florida crime, thus both confessions were unlawfully obtained under federal law, but their admission was harmless error due to overwhelming other evidence.
- The Florida Supreme Court accepted the case for review due to conflict with State v. DiGuilio regarding the standard for harmless error.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court err in admitting John Edward Traylor's confessions to the Florida and Alabama murders, and if so, was any error in their admission harmless, under Article I, Sections 9 and 16 of the Florida Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Shaw, Chief Justice
Yes, the trial court erred in admitting John Edward Traylor's confession to the Alabama murder under Article I, Section 16 of the Florida Constitution, but no, it did not err in admitting his confession to the Florida murder under either Section 9 or Section 16. The erroneous admission of the Alabama murder confession was, however, harmless. The Florida Supreme Court found that Florida's Declaration of Rights (Article I) provides independent and potentially broader protections than the U.S. Constitution. Under Article I, Section 9 (privilege against self-incrimination), the court codified Miranda-type warnings as a matter of state law, requiring suspects in custodial interrogation to be told of their right to remain silent, that statements can be used against them, and their right to a lawyer's help, including appointed counsel if indigent. If a suspect indicates in any manner a desire for a lawyer, interrogation must cease until counsel is present, and no state agent can reinitiate questioning on any offense during custody without counsel present. However, the court ruled that this right must be personally invoked by the suspect, and the lawyer Pete Johnson's general instruction to police not to question Traylor was a routine request, not a personal invocation by Traylor. Since Traylor was informed of his rights and validly waived them personally, his confessions were not obtained in violation of Section 9. Under Article I, Section 16 (right to counsel), the court held that the right to choose representation attaches when an accused is charged with a criminal act (by indictment, information, custodial restraint, or first appearance). This right requires an unrepresented defendant to be informed of the right to counsel and the consequences of waiver at each crucial stage, and waiver must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Crucially, the Section 16 right to counsel is charge-specific. Therefore, the confession to the Alabama murder was unlawfully obtained under Section 16 because counsel had been appointed for that specific charge at the preliminary hearing, barring police-initiated questioning on it. However, the confession to the Florida murder was admissible under Section 16 because, although the right attached when he was charged, Traylor had not requested or retained counsel on that specific Florida charge at the time of questioning, and his Miranda waiver was sufficient and valid for Section 16 purposes. Finally, the court applied its harmless error test from State v. DiGuilio, concluding that the erroneous admission of the Alabama murder confession was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given overwhelming evidence of Traylor's guilt for the Florida murder, including prior threats, physical evidence (hair, bloody handprint), and his subsequent letters confessing to both crimes.
Concurring in part, dissenting in part - Barkett, Justice
Justice Barkett concurred with the legal principles regarding federalism and the independent interpretation of Florida's Constitution, as well as the incorporation of Miranda and its progeny into Florida's Article I, Section 9, and most of Article I, Section 16. However, she dissented on the application of these principles to the facts. Justice Barkett argued that Traylor's request for a lawyer in the Alabama court before interrogation should have been considered an invocation of his Article I, Section 9 right to counsel, prohibiting police from initiating questioning on any matter, including the Florida charge, without his lawyer present. She criticized the majority's distinction between constitutional sources of the right to counsel, finding it unrealistic to expect an accused to understand. Citing Patterson v. Illinois, she contended that if Miranda warnings suffice to inform of Sixth Amendment rights, then invoking the Sixth Amendment right (by requesting counsel) should be sufficient to inform the State of a desire for counsel for any custodial questioning under the Fifth Amendment. Thus, she would have found both confessions inadmissible but concurred in the majority's ultimate finding of harmless error.
Concurring in part, dissenting in part - Kogan, Justice
Justice Kogan concurred in the result and with most of the majority's general statements of legal principles (Parts II-V), particularly regarding the primacy of the Florida Constitution and the codification of Miranda and Edwards v. Arizona principles into Article I, Section 9. However, he strongly dissented from the majority's factual finding that Traylor "never personally invoked his right to counsel." Justice Kogan argued that under federal law, an attorney can and does invoke a client's Fifth Amendment rights, especially after having consulted with the client, as was the case here with Pete Johnson. He emphasized that the Edwards rule is not offense-specific, meaning once a suspect invokes the right to counsel for interrogation on one offense, they cannot be re-approached regarding any offense without counsel present, and this applies even if different law enforcement agencies are involved or are unaware of the prior invocation. He also argued that the police initiated the contact with Traylor, not the other way around. Therefore, he concluded that both confessions were illegally obtained and inadmissible under both federal law and Article I, Section 9 of the Florida Constitution. He also disagreed with the majority that Article I, Section 16 rights should be charge-specific in police dealings during continuous custody. Despite these disagreements, he concurred with the majority's conclusion that the errors in admitting the confessions were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to other overwhelming evidence.
Analysis:
This case is highly significant for Florida criminal jurisprudence, cementing the Florida Supreme Court's commitment to interpreting the state constitution as an independent source of rights that can offer greater protections than its federal counterpart. It establishes clear guidelines for law enforcement regarding custodial interrogations under Florida law, particularly the scope of Miranda-like warnings and the Edwards v. Arizona rule. The court's distinction between a "personal invocation" of the Article I, Section 9 right to counsel and a lawyer's general instruction to police not to question a client creates a critical nuance that could lead to further litigation regarding how suspects must assert their rights. The ruling's affirmation of the "charge-specific" nature of the Article I, Section 16 right to counsel means that law enforcement, under state law, may question a represented suspect about an uncharged or separate crime for which counsel has not been invoked, even if the suspect has counsel for another pending charge. This aspect is less protective than the dissent argued it should be, and creates a divergence between state and federal Fifth Amendment interpretations regarding offense-specificity for invocation of the right to counsel during interrogation.
