Case Law ROSS v. State of Fla.

ROSS v. State of Fla.

Document Cited Authorities (50) Cited in (161) Related

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Steven L. Bolotin, Assistant Public Defender, Tenth Judicial Circuit, Bartow, Florida, for Appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Carol M. Dittmar, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, Florida, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Blaine Ross was convicted of the January 7, 2004, robbery and first-degree murders of his parents, Richard and Kathleen Ross. Ross, who was 21 at the time of the murders and living with his parents, appeals the judgments of conviction of robbery and first-degree murder and sentences of death. We have mandatory jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.

After carefully reviewing the issues raised on appeal, we reverse the convictions and sentences of death because of the police conduct in interrogating Ross on January 9, 2004. Specifically, the police, over a period of several hours of custodial interrogation, deliberately delayed administration of the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), obtained inculpatory admissions, and when the warnings were finally administered midstream, minimized and downplayed the significance of the warnings and continued the prior interrogation-all of which undermined the effectiveness of Miranda. In accordance with our precedent and the precedent of the United States Supreme Court, we conclude that under the totality of the circumstances, the waiver of the defendant's rights against self-incrimination was not voluntary, knowing, and intelligent, and the statements were not voluntarily given. Thus, for the reasons addressed below, we conclude that the police interrogation violated both Miranda and the defendant's constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 9, of the Florida Constitution. Because the admission of the multiple inculpatory statements cannot be considered harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, we are compelled to reverse for a new trial.

FACTS

In reviewing the facts of this case, we focus on both the circumstances surrounding the murder and the police interrogation that produced the inculpatory statements. Richard and Kathleen Ross were murdered on January 7, 2004, in their home in Bradenton, Florida. Their son, Blaine Ross, called 911 after discovering them in their bed covered in blood.

At the time of their deaths, Kathleen Ross was in the process of obtaining a divorce from her husband, Richard, after she discovered that he was having an affair. Although Richard had not vacated the premises, he was spending considerable time away from the house.

Ross was living at his parents' house, but spent substantial time with his sixteen-year-old girlfriend, Erin. On January 7, 2004, the day of the murder, Ross and his girlfriend, Erin, planned to drive to Cape Coral in order to buy drugs. According to Erin, Ross was not at her house when she went to sleep around 10:30 or 11:00 at night on January 6, but he was there when she woke up the next morning.

The morning of January 7, before leaving for Cape Coral, Ross and Erin first went to the GTE Federal Credit Union where Ross attempted to withdraw money. When his attempt was unsuccessful, he went inside and spoke to an employee, Barbara Curtis. Ross gave Curtis an ATM card, claiming that the account was his and that his mother changed the personal identification number (PIN). When Curtis looked up the account information, however, Kathleen Ross was the only person listed as having access to the account. Ross told her that his mother was out of town, but he could not provide any number for her. Ross continued to ask Curtis to change the PIN, but she refused.

After Ross was unable to obtain any money at the bank, he stopped by Checkers, went by Sam's Club and filled his car with gas, and stopped at a Circle K where Ross tried again, unsuccessfully, to use the ATM card. Ross returned to his house with Erin and asked her to wait in his room while he talked with his parents. He proceeded to his parents' bedroom, where the murders had occurred.

After he discovered his parents' bodies, Ross and Erin went outside while Ross called 911. When the police arrived, Ross was in his front yard with Erin, who was visibly upset. The police found the exterior lights on, and all of the blinds within the house were closed. Ross's parents appeared to have died while sleeping, with significant injuries to their heads. Blood was splattered across the bedroom, all over the walls, and up to the ceiling. The victims also had ropes around their necks. 1 Although clothing was scattered around the room, it was still folded and partially stacked, which was inconsistent with a typical burglary. After the bodies were moved, police found keys, a checkbook, and a wallet in the pillowcase on which Richard Ross was lying.

Police found no signs of forced entry, but the kitchen sliding glass door was partially open. Ross's fingerprints were found on the inside sliding glass door. In the garage, police found a bag containing baseball equipment; however, the compartment that would normally hold bats was unzipped and empty. Ross's fingerprints were found on a cigarette lighter, which was on top of the partially empty baseball bag.

The State also presented evidence that Ross's black pants had spots of blood on them that was consistent with the blood of Kathleen and Richard Ross. Law enforcement officers found his pants in Erin's bedroom after Erin's mother gave the officers permission to search the residence. The pants were not the ones Ross was wearing at the time he discovered his parents' bodies and called 911.

Dr. Vega, the medical examiner, performed an autopsy and determined that the cause of death for both victims was blunt impact head injuries. He estimated that the time of death was between 3 a.m. and 5 a.m. on January 7. Dr. Vega opined that neither victim moved after the initial injury because there was no blood staining beyond the area already uncovered. He found no defensive injuries and opined that the victims were asleep when initially struck. The injuries were consistent with being struck by a bat. Richard Ross was hit at least twice, but possibly more. Kathleen Ross was struck at least four times, but likely more than four.

The State presented evidence that Ross had a financial motive for the crime. Specifically, shortly before his parents were killed, Ross made several withdrawals from his mother's account, totaling $1,401.50. On January 6, 2004, Ross and his mother signed a contract which stated, “I, Kathleen Ross, has [sic] loaned Blaine Ross $1400 that will be paid back in full as soon as possible. Blaine will never ask for Sam's Club card or any other money.”

On January 7, after the police responded to Ross's 911 call, Detective William J. Waldron talked to Ross at the scene and described Ross as very quiet, calm, and withdrawn. After Detective Waldron interviewed some neighbors, he returned to Ross and found him crouched down near a vehicle to avoid the media. Ross appeared particularly stressed based on the media's arrival. Ross asked Detective Waldron if they could go somewhere to talk, and Detective Waldron suggested the sheriff's office, to which Ross agreed. Ross and Erin were then taken to the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) of the Manatee County Sheriff's Office.

Law enforcement officers interrogated Ross multiple times. 2 On January 7, after arriving at CID, Detective Waldron interviewed Ross four times throughout the day and into the early morning hours of January 8. Although Ross was at the police station for about twelve hours, the total time that he was interviewed on January 7 and 8 was a little less than four hours. In between the interviews, Ross was given breaks whenever he asked, was permitted to be alone in a common area near the elevator, was not restrained in any manner, and was not supervised. Detective Waldron conducted these interviews at a conference table in a large room.

The interviews were very conversational, but on occasion, the detective confronted Ross with discrepancies between his statement and statements from other witnesses. In the third and fourth interviews, another detective was also present, and the detectives became more direct with portions of Ross's story that were inconsistent. During the same day, the police also took statements from Erin and her mother, as well as other potential witnesses.

During the interviews on January 7 and 8, Ross was repeatedly assured he was not being arrested. After Ross finished providing the statements, a detective took Ross to Erin's house. After Ross was interviewed on January 7 and 8, he called Detective Waldron four times and left messages. In the last message, he stated:

Hello Detective Waldron, this is Blaine Ross. I'm calling in regards to what's going on. I have some questions, um, regarding the case and then some things that have been brought up to me in the recent time. Please give me a call back....

On January 9, Ross and his sister arrived at the sheriff's office, where the victim advocate's office was located. Ross came to see the victim advocate so he could buy shoes. At the time of the visit, he was still barefoot because the police had taken his shoes when he was first questioned, and he was not permitted to obtain any of his other shoes from his house as it was considered a crime scene.

When Ross arrived, Detective Waldron asked Ross to come see him when he finished with his meeting because he had received Ross's messages and had some more questions. Ross met with Detective Waldron as requested.

Detective Waldron believed that the January 9 interrogation was his last chance to talk to Ross...

5 cases
Document | Florida Supreme Court – 2018
Shelly v. State
"...knowingly and intelligently waived his or her privilege against self-incrimination and the right to counsel." Id. at 575. Ross v. State , 45 So.3d 403, 418 (Fla. 2010) (citations omitted). Shelly did not voluntarily initiate further conversation with Detective Consalo because the interrogat..."
Document | New Hampshire Supreme Court – 2014
State v. McKenna
"...(concluding defendant was in custody when, inter alia , questioning continued for over an hour and turned accusatory); Ross v. State, 45 So.3d 403, 415–16 (Fla.2010) (finding questioning "highly confrontational and accusatorial," and weighing in favor of custody fact that "[t]he detective r..."
Document | Florida Supreme Court – 2016
McCloud v. State
"...States Supreme Court have made clear, ‘the ultimate issue of voluntariness is a legal rather than factual question.’ " Ross v. State, 45 So.3d 403, 418 (Fla.2010) (quoting Ramirez v. State, 739 So.2d 568, 575 (Fla.1999) ). Specifically, "whether a confession is admissible depends on (1) whe..."
Document | Iowa Supreme Court – 2016
State v. Schlitter
"...a highly confrontational and accusatorial proceeding converts a voluntary encounter into a custodial interrogation. See Ross v. State, 45 So.3d 403, 415–16 (Fla.2010). When interrogation escalates, the key question is whether a reasonable person would feel at the time of the accusatorial qu..."
Document | Appellate Court of Illinois – 2023
People v. Leanos
"...See Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600, 124 S.Ct. 2601, 159 L.Ed.2d 643 (2004) (plurality opinion). (And in Ross v. State, 45 So. 3d 403, 429 (Fla. 2010) (per curiam), defendant’s other citation, the statement at issue was likewise embedded in a broader Seibert violation.) It was the Seibert..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial
4 books and journal articles
Document | Volume 2 – 2023
Misdemeanor defense
"...Statements §17:132 Custody Defined The Miranda warning is not required unless the suspect has been taken into custody. [ Ross v. State , 45 So. 3d 403, 415 (Fla. 2010).] Whether a suspect is in custody for Miranda purposes rests upon “how a reasonable person in the suspect’s situation would..."
Document | Wrongful Conviction: Law, Science, and Policy (CAP) 2011
CHAPTER 4 FALSE CONFESSIONS
"...not confined to incriminating statements made by youths or individuals with mental disabilities. Consider the following case.Ross v. State45 So.3d 403 (Fla. 2010) Per Curiam. [Based in part on a confession secured by the police, Blaine Ross was convicted of the capital murder of his parents..."
Document | Volume 1 – 2021
Appeals
"...Determining whether a suspect is in custody for Miranda purposes is subject to independent review by an appellate court. Ross v. State, 45 So. 3d 403 (Fla. 2010) The DiGuilio harmless error standard is not an “overwhelming evidence” standard. Overwhelming evidence of guilt does not negate t..."
Document | Volume 2 – 2021
Defendant's statements
"...reversal of two first-degree murder convictions and death penalties due to the failure to give proper Miranda warnings.) Ross v. State, 45 So. 3d 403 (Fla. 2010) A delay of thirty minutes between giving Miranda warnings and the beginning of the interrogation does not affect the validity of ..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
4 books and journal articles
Document | Volume 2 – 2023
Misdemeanor defense
"...Statements §17:132 Custody Defined The Miranda warning is not required unless the suspect has been taken into custody. [ Ross v. State , 45 So. 3d 403, 415 (Fla. 2010).] Whether a suspect is in custody for Miranda purposes rests upon “how a reasonable person in the suspect’s situation would..."
Document | Wrongful Conviction: Law, Science, and Policy (CAP) 2011
CHAPTER 4 FALSE CONFESSIONS
"...not confined to incriminating statements made by youths or individuals with mental disabilities. Consider the following case.Ross v. State45 So.3d 403 (Fla. 2010) Per Curiam. [Based in part on a confession secured by the police, Blaine Ross was convicted of the capital murder of his parents..."
Document | Volume 1 – 2021
Appeals
"...Determining whether a suspect is in custody for Miranda purposes is subject to independent review by an appellate court. Ross v. State, 45 So. 3d 403 (Fla. 2010) The DiGuilio harmless error standard is not an “overwhelming evidence” standard. Overwhelming evidence of guilt does not negate t..."
Document | Volume 2 – 2021
Defendant's statements
"...reversal of two first-degree murder convictions and death penalties due to the failure to give proper Miranda warnings.) Ross v. State, 45 So. 3d 403 (Fla. 2010) A delay of thirty minutes between giving Miranda warnings and the beginning of the interrogation does not affect the validity of ..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | Florida Supreme Court – 2018
Shelly v. State
"...knowingly and intelligently waived his or her privilege against self-incrimination and the right to counsel." Id. at 575. Ross v. State , 45 So.3d 403, 418 (Fla. 2010) (citations omitted). Shelly did not voluntarily initiate further conversation with Detective Consalo because the interrogat..."
Document | New Hampshire Supreme Court – 2014
State v. McKenna
"...(concluding defendant was in custody when, inter alia , questioning continued for over an hour and turned accusatory); Ross v. State, 45 So.3d 403, 415–16 (Fla.2010) (finding questioning "highly confrontational and accusatorial," and weighing in favor of custody fact that "[t]he detective r..."
Document | Florida Supreme Court – 2016
McCloud v. State
"...States Supreme Court have made clear, ‘the ultimate issue of voluntariness is a legal rather than factual question.’ " Ross v. State, 45 So.3d 403, 418 (Fla.2010) (quoting Ramirez v. State, 739 So.2d 568, 575 (Fla.1999) ). Specifically, "whether a confession is admissible depends on (1) whe..."
Document | Iowa Supreme Court – 2016
State v. Schlitter
"...a highly confrontational and accusatorial proceeding converts a voluntary encounter into a custodial interrogation. See Ross v. State, 45 So.3d 403, 415–16 (Fla.2010). When interrogation escalates, the key question is whether a reasonable person would feel at the time of the accusatorial qu..."
Document | Appellate Court of Illinois – 2023
People v. Leanos
"...See Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600, 124 S.Ct. 2601, 159 L.Ed.2d 643 (2004) (plurality opinion). (And in Ross v. State, 45 So. 3d 403, 429 (Fla. 2010) (per curiam), defendant’s other citation, the statement at issue was likewise embedded in a broader Seibert violation.) It was the Seibert..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex