Case Name: Daniel Richard HENTHORNE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1982-01-08
Citations: 409 So. 2d 1081
Docket Number: No. 81-1383
Parties: Daniel Richard HENTHORNE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: SCHOONOVER, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 409
Pages: 1081–1082

Head Matter:
Daniel Richard HENTHORNE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 81-1383.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Jan. 8, 1982.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 23, 1982.
Jerry Hill, Public Defender, and William H. Pasch, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert J. Landry, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

Opinion:
BOARDMAN, Acting Chief Judge.
Daniel Richard Henthorne appeals his conviction and sentence for armed robbery. He raises two points on appeal, one of which has merit. He contends that the confession he gave to the police was involuntary and should have been suppressed. We agree and reverse.
Appellant's confession is rendered involuntary by the undisputed fact that the interrogating officer promised appellant that if he would disclose the identity of his coperpetrator in the instant case, he would not be charged with two other armed robberies the officer believed he was involved in. Where a confession is induced by the promise of a benefit, however slight, the confession cannot stand. Shotwell Manufacturing Co. v. United States, 37 U.S. 341, 83 S.Ct. 448, 9 L.Ed.2d 357 (1963); Frazier v. State, 107 So.2d 16 (Fla.1958); State v. Chorpenning, 294 So.2d 54 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). The law on this point was made clear as early as 1897, when the United States Supreme Court held: " '. . A confession can never be received in evidence where the prisoner has been influenced by any threat or promise ; for the law cannot measure the force of the influence used, or decide upon its effect upon the mind of the prisoner Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532, 543, 18 S.Ct. 183, 187, 42 L.Ed. 568, 573 (1897). (Emphasis added.)
The fact that appellant was permitted to and did confer with an attorney before making his decision to confess is immaterial, since it could not vitiate the effect of the very direct and explicit promise made. None of the cases relied on by the state involves such a clear inducement; they are therefore inapposite to the case before us.
Inasmuch as the robbery victim was the only other witness against appellant, we cannot say that the evidence against appellant was so overwhelming as to render the admission of his confession in evidence harmless error, although the victim's testimony in and of itself would have been sufficient to support a guilty verdict.
Accordingly, appellant's judgment and sentence is REVERSED and the cause REMANDED for new trial.
SCHOONOVER, J., concurs.
CAMPBELL, J., dissents with opinion.