Case Name: The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Andres ECHEVARRIA, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1982-10-26
Citations: 422 So. 2d 53
Docket Number: No. 81-2603
Parties: The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Andres ECHEVARRIA, Appellee.
Judges: Before NESBITT, BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 422
Pages: 53–55

Head Matter:
The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Andres ECHEVARRIA, Appellee.
No. 81-2603.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Oct. 26, 1982.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 8, 1982.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Calvin L. Fox, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
William A. Clay and Paul Morris, Miami, for appellee.
Before NESBITT, BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.

Opinion:
BASKIN, Judge.
We affirm the trial court's suppression of statements made by defendant Echevarria in response to questioning by an officer attempting to complete a police report. Echevarria had asked to speak to an attorney prior to the time he was taken to the police station. When the officer asked "Who hit you?" Echevarria, who spoke little English, stated that the man he killed had hit him.
In our view, Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981); Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980); and Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) govern. Defendant's response was the "intentional result of interrogation," Barfield v. State, 402 So.2d 377, 381 (Fla.1981), and may not be deemed a voluntary statement merely because the officer intended to complete a report. In Innis, the court expressed the concept that it is the perception of the suspect rather than the intent of the police upon which we must focus. 446 U.S. at 301, 100 S.Ct. at 1689-90.
Affirmed.