I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 0 - CT - 0 0 8 9 8 - S CT W ALT ER T ARD
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 06/ 08/ 2009 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. S AM AC S
. RI CH AR DS ON COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: M ADI S ON COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN T: OFFI CE O F S TATE PUB LI C D EFENDER BY : GEO RG E T. HO LM ES LESL I E S. LEE AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L BY : SCOTT STUA RT D I STR I CT A TTO RN EY : M I CH A EL G U EST NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E M A N D E D - 02/ 20/ 2014 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:
EN BA NC. KI NG , J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. W al t er Tard w as conv i ct ed in the M adis on C ou nty C i rcui tC ou rtof arm ed robb ery and sent enced t o serve for ty-f i ve years, w i th t en y ears suspend ed an d fi ve y ears of post -r el ease
s upervi s i on, i n the cus t ody o f t he M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m entof C orr ect i ons . O n w r i tof
cert i or ar i , T ar d a ppeal s a Courtof A ppeal s j udgm enta f

f i r m i ng hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence . T ar d ar gues thatthe tr i al c our te r r ed by f ai l i ng t o r evi ew hi s e nt i r e vi deot aped i nt err ogat i on and by f ai l i ng t o s uppr es s hi s s t at ement . Fur ther , T ar d cl ai m s thatthe C our tof A ppeal s err ed

### 2

b y no t rev iew ing th e v ideo tape d i n terrog ati o n on ap p ea l an d by affi rm ing th e tr ial c o u rt ’s jud g m en t. B ec au se th e re co rd b efo re u s fail s to ind icate u p o n w h at ev iden ce the tri al co u rt b ase d it s d ec isi o n to d en y T ard ’s m o ti o n to su p p res s h is i n terrog ati o n , w e re v erse T ard ’s
c o n v ictio n a n d se n ten c e a n d re m a n d th e c a se to th e c irc u it co u rt fo r a n e w trial. FACTS ¶2. O n J anuary 5, 2007, s om eone r obbed a D rury I nn i n R i dgel and, M i s s i s s i ppi
. D ur i ng the pol i ce i nves t i gat i on of the r obbery, D et ect i ve D onal d M art i n of the R i dg el and P ol i ce D epart m entobt ai ned the names of a f ew s us pect s , one of

w hom w as W al t erTar d. The pol i ce putt ogethera phot ogr aph i c li neup forthe des k cl erk w ho w as r obbed, and s he i dent i f i ed T ard as b eing the m an w h o h ad rob b ed h er. ¶3
. Soon aft er, det ect i ves w i t h t he R i dgel and Pol i ce D epar t m entar r es t ed T ar d and
v i d e o t a p e d h i s i n t e r v i e w wi th De t e c t i v e M a r t i n . Th e i n t e rr o g a t i o n l a s t e d a p p r o x i ma t e l y t wo ho urs. ¶4. T ar d w as i ndi ct ed on M ay 22, 2007, f or arm ed r obbery pur s uant t o M i s s i s s i ppi C ode S e cti o n 97 -3-7 9
. T ard plea d ed no t g u il ty, an d th e m att er w as se t for tri al. T a rd m o v e d to
s uppr es s hi s conf

essi on , ar gui ng t hat“s uch w as notvol unt ar i l y gi ven i n that , underthe t otal i ty of the ci rcum st ances, the i nv est i gati ng D et ect i ve m ade m i sr epresent at i on s, prom i ses, thr eat s , and i nducement s i n or dert o getthe D ef endantto adm i tt o a cr i m e al l w hi l e the D e fe n d a n t su ffe re d fro m a d im in ish e d m e n tal c a p a c ity .” O n D e c e m b e r 1 2 , 2 0 0 8 , the c irc u it
courthel d a s uppr es s i on hear i ng t o cons i derthe admi s s i bi l i ty of T ar d’ s conf

es s i on. A tt he h e a rin g , D e tec tiv e M a rtin tes tified th a t h e m a d e s e v e ra l m isre p re se n tatio n s to T a rd to g e t h im to c o n fe s s to th e ro b b e ry . T a rd ’s a u n t a ls o te s tif ie d , c la im in g T a rd h a d , in tera lia , s ubnor m al

### The h e ari ngtr ans c ript , p r od uc e d i n f ul l , m e r e ly s t at e s that

thec ourt w e nt “ of f the 1 

### re cord” t o vie w thevide ota pe, and the court ma de no state me nts on there cord as to whi ch portion or portions of the vi deot apeit vie wed. Bec aus e the St at e had viol at ed an orde r t o exc ludeme nti on of other crim es , the tri al 2 

### court de cl ar ed a

mi stri alo n Decemb er 29, 2008. A s ec ond mi stri alwas dec lare d on Feb ruary2, 2 00 9, after a no np arty lawy er entered the courtroo m and hada conv ersationwith a s el ec te d juror. The s uppre ssi on hearing was hel d pri or t o thefirs t t ri al . At thethird tri al , the tri al 3 

### court di d not revi ew the previ ously fi le d motion t o suppres s Tard’ s s tate me nt, proc ee ding under it s originalrul ing on t

he m oti on. 3 m ent al capac i ty. D ur i ng the mot i on t o s uppr es s , the tr i al courtm ade c l earthati tdi d notvi ew the ent i r e tw o- hourvi deot aped s t at ementw hen rul i ng on T ar d’s m oti on t o s uppr es s . T he
r ecor d i s ut t er l y s i l entr egar di ng w hatpor t i ons of the vi deot ape the tr i al courtvi ew ed. 1 ¶5. T he ci r cui tcourtdeni ed Tar d’ s m ot i on t o s uppr es s the con fes si on, not i ng that i nves t i gat or s us e many di f f er entt echni ques t o extr actst at em ent s and conf es s i ons f r om
s us pect s , and thatno exampl es of coer ci on orpr om i s es of r ew ar d w er e i ndi cat ed dur i ng t he conf es s i on. T he ci r cui tcourtal s o deni ed T ar d’ s cl ai m of di m i ni s hed m ent al capa ci ty, not i ng thatno m edi cal di agnos i s of s ubnor m al m ent al c apac i ty ort es t i m ony, otherthan thatgi ven b y h is a u n t, ha d b e e n su b m itt e d to th e c o u rt. T h u s, T a rd p ro c e e d e d to trial. ¶6. A f

t ertw o m i s tr i al s , T ar d ent er ed a gui l ty pl ea on February 3, 2009. H ow ever , att he 2
s ent enci ng hear i ng on M ar ch 9, 2009, the ci r cui tcourts etas i de t he gui l ty pl ea f ol l ow i ng T ar d’ s r eques tf

orw i thdr aw al
. A thi r d tr i al began on M ay 5, 2009, atw hi ch Tar d w as f ound gui l ty of arm ed r obbery. T ar d f i l ed a mot i on f

ora j udgm entnotw i ths t andi ng the verdi ct 3 ( JN O V ) and f

ora new t r i al on J une 11, 2009. T he ci r cui tcour tdeni ed hi s m ot i on on M ay 3 , 2 0 1 0
.

### Miranda v. Ari zona , 384 U. S. 436, 86 S. Ct . 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966)
. 4 

### 4 ¶7. T he C our t of A ppeal s det erm i ned that “tr i al couns el never att empt ed t o i ntr oduce the ent i r e vi deota pe f

orthe ci r cui tcourt ’ s orthe j ury’ s r evi ew . B eca us e the i s s ue w as never p re s e n te d b e fo re th e c ir c u it ju d g e , a n y c la im fo r e rr o r i s p ro c e d u ra lly b a rr e d fr o m re v ie w .” T a rd v. S tate , _

_ S o . 3 d __ , 2 0 1 3 W L 5 0 0 7 4 5 , at *4 (M iss. C t. A p p . F eb
. 1 2 , 2 0 1 3 ). A ccor di ngl y, t he C our tof A ppeal s af

f i r m ed Tar d’ s convi ct i on and s ent ence . W e gr ant ed T a rd ’s r e q u e st fo r w rit o f c e rtio ra ri. A N A L Y S IS ¶8. T ar d m oved t o s uppr es s hi s conf es s i on, ar gui ng that “s uch w as not vol unt ar i l y gi ven i n that , underthe t ot al i ty of the ci r cumst ance s , the i nves t i gat i ng D et ect i ve made
m isre p re se n tatio n s, p ro m ise s, thr e a ts, an d ind u c e m e n ts in o rd e r to g e t th e D e fe n d a n t to a d m it t o a cr i m e al l w hi l e the D ef endants uf

f er ed f r om a di m i ni s hed ment al capa ci ty. ” ¶9. W e w i l l not di s turb a tr i al court ’ s deni al of a m ot i on t o s uppr es s unl es s “the i ncorr ect l egal pr i nci pl e w as appl i ed; i f ther e w as no s ubs t ant i al evi dence t o s uppor ta vol unt ary, k n o w ing , a n d intell igen t w aive r of Mir anda ri gh t s; and i f the d enial w as a r esul tof m anif est 4
err or . ” S c o tt v. S ta te , 8 So. 3d 855, 861 ( M i s s . 2008). T he St at e bea r s the bur den t o pr ove th e v o lu n ta ri n e s s o f th e c o n fe s s io n b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t. Id
. at86 1. T he v olunt ari ness of a conf es s i on i s a f

actual i nqui r y thatm us tbe made by t he t r i al j udge f r om a t ot al i ty of

t he
c ir c u m s ta n c e s . W

ill ia m s v . S ta te , 115 So. 3d 774, 778 ( M i s s . 2013)
. T aki ng the t ot al i ty of the ci r cumst ance s i nt o c ons i der at i on, a conf es s i on i s vol unt ary w hen i ti s the pr oductof the d e fe n d a n t’ s fr e e a n d ra tio n a l c h o ic e . See H a rde n v. S ta te , 59 S o . 3d 5 9 4 , 6 0 5 (M iss. 2 0 1 1 ).

### 5

T hus , any conf

es s i on el i ci t ed as a re s ul tof pr om i s es , t hr eat s , or i nducement s i s notvol unt ary. Id
. ¶10. A l s o, w her e the acc us ed’ s m ent al capa ci ty i s rai sed, t he tr i al court m us tdet erm i ne “w hetherthe ac cus ed, pr i ort o t he conf es s i on, under s t ood the contentand s ubs t ance of t he Mir anda w arni ng and the natur e of the cha r ges of

w hi ch he w as acc us ed. ” Wil lia ms , 115 S o. 2d at778
. T he defend ant’ s m ental r et ardat i on “does not render a confessio n p er se i nvol unt ary; r ather , the def endant ’ s m ent al abi l i t i es ar e butone f act ort o be cons i der ed. H ar den , 59 So. 3d at605. ¶ 1 1
. Be c a u s e t h e t r i a l c o u r td i d n o tr e v i e w th e e n t i r e v i d e o t a p e d i n t e rr o g a t i o n , Ta r d c l a i ms the tr i al courtf

ai l ed t o cons i derthe t otal i ty of the ci r cumst ance s . T he r ecor d does not i ndi cat e w hi ch part s of

t he i nt err og at i on t he tr i al courtvi ew ed, al though i ti s cl earthatt he trial c o u rt d id n o t v iew th e e n tire v id e o tap e d in ter ro g a tio n . T h is C o u rt is le ft to sp e c u late
w h ethe r th e tri al co u rtw atch ed ten s ec o n d s, o r on e h o u r an d fif ty-n ine sec o n d s, a n d itis l eft t o s pecul at e as t o exac t l y w hi ch port i ons of the vi deot ape the tr i al courtvi ew ed i n m aki ng it s d eterm ination o f vo lun tari n ess u n d er the totali ty o f th e c ir cu m stan ce s. T h u s, this C o u rt is u n a b le to d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e trial c o u rt e rre d , sin c e th e re c o rd fa ils to in d ica te e x a c tly
w hi ch f act s and ci r cumst ance s the tr i al courtcons i der ed i n det erm i ni ng w hethert he
c o n fe s s io n w a s v o lu n ta ry . ¶12. T he St at e bear s t he bur den of est abl i s hi ng vol unt ar i nes s beyond a r eas onabl e doubt
a s d e ter m in e d b y the tota lity o f th e circ u m sta n c e s. S c o tt , 8 S o. 3d at861. T hatbur den in c lu d e s b e in g c e rta in th a t th e e v id e n c e to b e c o n sid e re d o n th e is su e o f v o lu n tar in e ss is p ro p e rl y p la c e d in th e r e c o rd
. See, e. g. , S h o rt v . S ta te , 929 So. 2d 420, 426 ( M i s s . A pp.

### 6

2 0 0 6 ). U n d e r th e fa c ts o f th is c a se , tha t in c lu d e d a n y p o rtio n s o f th e c o n fe ss io n a c tu a lly vi ew ed by the tr i al court . T he r ecor d bef or e thi s C our tdoes notal l ow us t o j udge w hether the S tat e c arried th at bu rde n b ec au se itlack s an y ind icati o n o f th e b asis for the tr ial co u rt ’s d e c isio n . T h e re fo re , w e re v e rse a n d re m a n d th e ju d g m e n t o f th e M a d is o n C o u n ty C irc u it C our tf ora new tr i al
. A l s o, beca us e the C our tof A ppeal s af

f i r m ed the j udgm enterr oneous l y,
w e revers e t he judgm ent of the C ou rtof A pp eal s.

CO NC L US I ON ¶13. T he r ecor d m ade a tthe s uppr es s i on hear i ng i s i ns uf f i ci entt o det erm i ne the bas i s upon
w hi ch the tr i al courtdeni ed Tar d’ s m ot i on t o suppr es s . Fort hi s re as on, t he j udgm ent s of t he C o u rt o f A p p e a ls a n d o f th e M a d iso n C o u n ty C irc u it C o u rt a re re v e rse d , an d th e c a se is
re m a n d e d to th e c irc u it co u rt fo r a n e w trial. ¶ 1 4
. RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D. W A LL ER , C . J. , D I C K I N SO N A N D R A N D O L P H , P . JJ. , LA M A R , K I TC H EN S, CHANDL ER , P I ER CE AND COL EM AN, J J . , CONCUR.