Can Phone Calls While In Police Custody Incriminate a Person ?
In Consalvo v. State, 697 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 1996), evidence of a collateral burglary committed approximately six days after the charged offense was admissible "to establish the entire context out of which the criminal action occurred." Id. at 813.
Specifically, the court noted that the police discovered evidence of the charged offense on Consalvo's person at the time of his arrest for the collateral crime and overheard Consalvo place a phone call while in custody for the collateral crime that incriminated him in the charged offense. Id.
Similarly, in Long v. State, 610 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 1992), evidence regarding a collateral crime but not the details of that crime was admissible where the defendant's arrest for that crime and the subsequent examination of his vehicle supplied hair and fiber samples connecting him to the charged crime. Id. at 1281;
See also Henry v. State, 574 So. 2d 73, 75 (Fla. 1991) (some reference to, but not the full details of, a subsequent crime "may have been necessary to place the events in context, to describe adequately the investigation").