State v. S.G.
The Sixth DCA reversed a trial court order suppressing a 13-year-old's statements to a detective investigating threats at her school, finding that telling the child she was 'not in trouble' and calling her 'sweetie' did not amount to an implied promise of leniency or coercion where she was not yet a suspect and not in custody. The court also reversed the related order excluding co-conspirator hearsay statements, holding that the trial court's erroneous suppression ruling improperly infected its finding that there was insufficient independent evidence of the conspiracy.
Key facts
- Thirteen-year-old S.G. made statements to a detective investigating threats made at her school; the trial court suppressed the statements, finding them involuntary based on the detective's assurances that S.G. was 'not in trouble' and use of comforting language like 'sweetie.'
- S.G. was not yet a suspect and the encounter with the detective was non-custodial when she made the statements.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion is useful for practitioners handling juvenile suppression motions because it reaffirms that comforting language and assurances that a subject is 'not in trouble' do not automatically constitute coercion or… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.