Opinion ID: 864962
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether the confessions should have been

Text: SUPPRESSED UNDER THE “FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE” DOCTRINE. 6 ¶12. We combine and discuss together these two assignments of error. Glasper asserts that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Glasper’s confessions were intelligently, knowingly and voluntarily given; and, that the confessions were erroneously allowed into evidence since Glasper was arrested and initially interrogated on a peeping tom warrant. After a hearing, the trial court found that the motion to suppress should be denied, and that the 54-page transcript of Glasper’s tape-recorded statement, his one page-plus hand written statement, and his video-taped confession, all given on May 31, 2000, should be allowed into evidence.
¶13. The State asserts that the issue of the voluntariness of the confessions is procedurally barred since the record before us does not contain a certified copy of the transcript of the trial court’s suppression hearing. While the State acknowledges that the transcript of the suppression hearing is a part of Glasper’s record excerpts, the State asserts that since the transcript is not a part of the official record before us, we cannot consider it. ¶14. We disagree with the State that Glasper is procedurally barred from attacking the admissibility of his confessions due to an incomplete record being before us on this issue. In attempting to convince us that this issue is procedurally barred, the State cites Roy v. State, 878 So.2d 84, 88 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003); and, Roberts v. State, 761 So.2d 934, 935 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000). However, these two decisions of the Court of Appeals involve cases where the defendants wholly failed to designate and include the portion of the record necessary to undergird an assignment of error. Here, Glasper’s pro se “Designation of Record” stated that 7 the appellate record should consist of “[a]ll clerk’s papers, trial transcripts, exhibits, orders, and all documents filed, taken, or offered in this case.” ¶15. Additionally, at the time same that Glasper’s counsel filed the appellant’s brief with us, she also filed an “Appellant’s Record Excerpts,” and an “Appellant’s Addendum to Record (Exhibits).” Included in the addendum is a 100-page transcript of a hearing conducted before the trial judge on November 5, 2001. The cover page reveals that the transcript pertains to a motion hearing reported by “Deborah H. Nelson, CSR 1256.” On page 100 of the transcript is Ms. Nelson’s “Court Reporter’s Certificate” stating, inter alia, “that the preceding and foregoing one hundred (100) pages contain a full, true and correct transcription of my shorthand notes.”4 ¶16. The trial transcript, which is part of the official record before us, reveals that after opening statements, Glasper’s attorney requested a motion hearing outside the presence of the jury, which request was granted by the trial court. During the course of the discussion with the attorneys concerning certain motions, the trial court inquired “Does the State have the transcript on the suppression hearing?” The prosecutor responded in the affirmative. The trial transcript then reveals the following: [PROSECUTOR]: Here it is, Your Honor, on page 17 of the [suppression hearing] transcript. Mr. Walls, I believe, asked these questions. I know you went into that house and I know you had sex with that woman, all right? That was on the 31st. What evidence did y’all have that he had done that? There were some 4 A review of this 100-page transcript reveals that approximately 93 pages is devoted to the suppression hearing concerning the confessions, while the remaining pages are devoted to arguments and rulings on other motions. 8 fingerprints inside the house. And you had matched those prints to him? Yes, sir. When we refer to page 17 of the transcript of the suppression hearing, we find, verbatim, the testimony which the prosecutor quoted to the trial judge during the motion hearing commenced immediately after the opening statements to the jury. ¶17. During the State’s direct examination of MHP-CIB Criminal Investigator Tim Pyles in the State’s case-in-chief, the prosecutor refers to the suppression hearing transcript, and suppression hearing exhibits were retrieved for the purpose of introduction as trial exhibits. Additionally, when Glasper testified at trial, he stated before the jury, inter alia, that he was intoxicated at the time of his arrest, thus rendering any subsequent statements by him as involuntary due to his intoxication. During the District Attorney’s cross-examination of Glasper, the following occurred: Q. Well, the transcript of your testimony said that you had been drinking four or five quarts of beer. A. No, I hadn’t drunk that much. Q. Two or three half pints of alcohol and had been smoking marihuana with a couple of fellows. A. Is this a statement of mine? Q. Yes, sir. This is your testimony from a hearing which was held on November 5, 2001.