Case Title: Harrell v. State

Citation: 357 So. 2d 643

Docket Number: 

State: mississippi

Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Date: 1978-04-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
357 So. 2d 643 (1978) Jimmy Wayne HARRELL v. STATE of Mississippi. No. 50440. Supreme Court of Mississippi. April 12, 1978. Richard D. Foxworth, Columbia, for appellant. A.F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Calvin Coolidge Williams, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee. Before SMITH, LEE and BOWLING, JJ. BOWLING, Justice, for the court. Appellant was tried and convicted in the Circuit Court of Marion County. He was charged with violating the provisions of Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-5-23 (1972), which provides as follows: Appellant presents two assignments of error, towit: As stated above, appellant contends that his Miranda warnings and instructions were not sufficient to satisfy the Sixth Amendment requirements as set out in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966), Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S. Ct. 792, 9 L. Ed. 2d 799 (1963), and Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 95 S. Ct. 854, 43 L. Ed. 2d 54 (1975). First we need to examine and analyze the warnings, statement of rights, and waivers executed by appellant prior to giving the statement complained of by him here. The record shows that appellant was arrested after midnight on the morning of January 7, 1977. At the non-jury hearing to determine the admissibility of appellant's statement, Bobby Reed, Sheriff of Marion County and the arresting officer, testified that immediately upon arresting appellant he read him the following Miranda rights, towit: Appellant was taken to the Marion County jail and according to the testimony of the officers, and not materially disputed by appellant, the latter was presented an already completed form obviously used by the sheriff's office and written in typed capital letters. Appellant read and signed this form as follows: "Before we ask you any questions, you must understand your rights. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in Court. You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions, and to have him with you during questioning. You have this right to the presence and advice of a lawyer even if you cannot afford to hire one. We have no way of giving you a lawyer, but one will be appointed for you, if you wish, if and when you go to court. If you wish to answer questions now without a lawyer present, you have the right to stop answering questions at any time. You also have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to a lawyer. I have read the statement of my rights as shown above. I understand what my rights are. I am willing to answer questions and make a statement. I do not want a lawyer. I understand and know what I am doing. No promises or threats have been made to me and no pressure of any kind has been used against me. After executing the foregoing rights and waiver form, appellant wrote a statement in his own handwriting and signed it. This was on another previously prepared form headed "Statement." Part of the statement was typed into the form and had a place for the time, date, place of the statement *645 being given, and the name of the person making the statement. After the introduction, the remaining part of the sheet was mostly blank. Appellant wrote his statement in this part. The statement then ended with another typewritten form stating "I have read the above statement consisting of ____ pages and attest that it is a true and accurate account of the events which took place on ____. It was given by me freely and voluntarily, without fear of threat or promise of reward." There were two blanks for witnesses and a blank for the signature of the person giving the statement. We will not set out the statement written by appellant in his own handwriting as this will serve no purpose in this opinion, as hereafter shall be discussed. Appellant contends that this Court has condemned the above set out form headed "Your Rights" in the cases of Burge v. State, 282 So. 2d 223 (1973), and Evans v. State, 275 So. 2d 83 (1973). In Evans, in discussing almost the identical alleged error now before the Court, it was said: The Court held that the accused Evans was sufficiently warned of his rights. In Burge, the Court again was confronted with a similar statement in the waiver form executed by the accused. One sentence in the Burge form was identical to one sentence in the form in the case at bar, towit: "We have no way of giving you a lawyer, but one will be appointed for you if you wish, if and when you go to court." The Court, in criticising this language but holding it not to be prejudicial and reversible error, stated: We hereby reiterate and emphasize the above admonition to peace officers and suggest that this be followed henceforth. *646 We hold that even though the one sentence quoted above that still appears in the warning now before the Court does not constitute reversible error as the other language is clear and certainly offsets any damage done by the quoted sentence. The Court found that the arresting officer read appellant his Miranda rights as set out above immediately upon arrest. The "Rights Form" then signed by appellant at the sheriff's office clearly told appellant that "you have the right to remain silent," and "you have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions, and to have him with you during the questioning," and "you have the right to stop answering questions at any time," and "you also have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to a lawyer." Appellant was a high school graduate and from his testimony and the writing of the statement in his own handwriting and the contents therein, he certainly knew from reading the above that he could not be forced to give a statement. He read and agreed in the "Waiver" that "I do not want a lawyer. I understand and know what I am doing. No promises or threats have been made to me and no pressure of any kind has been used against me." Appellant did testify that he was threatened and was physically abused. The lower court found against him on this conflicting testimony. Therefore, we hold, as in Evans and Burge, that the addition of the undesirable sentence in the "rights" warning is not sufficient to hold that appellant was not given adequate warnings under Miranda. However, we do emphasize to peace officers in this state that these forms should be prepared correctly and that the objectionable sentence, as hereinbefore discussed, should be changed or omitted therefrom. We shall not discuss the testimony of the witnesses at the trial. It is sufficient to say that with the admission of appellant's statement and the testimony of the prosecuting witness there was ample evidence for the jury to find that appellant violated the provisions of section 97-5-23. AFFIRMED. PATTERSON, C.J., SMITH, P.J., ROBERTSON, P.J., and SUGG, WALKER, LEE and COFER, JJ., concur. BROOM, J., took no part.