Opinion ID: 1629938
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the trial court erred in admitting seeling's confession into evidence.

Text: ¶ 10. The day after Draven's death Seeling was taken in for questioning. He was mirandized when he was handcuffed and put in the back of the patrol car. Seeling said that he understood his Miranda rights, but that his statement was not voluntary because the police beat him. He claims that his statement was written out by Officer Hurt and he read it. Seeling further stated that he just said things in his taped statement that Officer Hurt told him to say. He never invoked his right to an attorney even though he had heard his Miranda rights several times. ¶ 11. An arrest occurs when a person is in custody and not free to leave. Thomas v. State, 645 So.2d 1345, 1347 (Miss.1994). Logically, one would conclude that surely Seeling knew that he was under arrest when he was placed in handcuffs. Seeling tries to draw an analogy between the case sub judice and Campbell v. State, 798 So.2d 524, 526-27 (Miss.2001). However, that analogy is misplaced because Seeling was mirandized when he was handcuffed and placed in the police car. In Campbell the police waited to give the Miranda warnings until after the defendant was in custody and they had obtained further evidence. Id. Seeling said that he understood his rights. Further, he signed a voluntary statement form. ¶ 12. The United States Supreme Court has pronounced the law regarding the admissibility of a defendant's waiver of his privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Miranda requires proof that the waiver was voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently made. The trial judge makes that determination. Findings by a trial court that a confession was voluntary and that the confession is admissible will not be reversed by this Court as long as the trial court applies the correct principles of law and the finding is factually supported by the evidence. Davis v. State, 551 So.2d 165, 169 (Miss. 1989); Dedeaux v. State, 519 So.2d 886, 889-90 (Miss.1988). ¶ 13. When the voluntariness of a confession is put into question, the defendant has a due process right to a reliable determination that the confession was in fact voluntarily given. Stokes v. State, 548 So.2d 118, 121 (Miss.1989). The State bears the burden of proving all facts prerequisite to admissibility beyond a reasonable doubt. Davis, 551 So.2d at 169; Jones v. State, 461 So.2d 686, 697 (Miss. 1984); Neal v. State, 451 So.2d 743, 753 (Miss.1984). This burden is met and a prima facie case made out by the testimony of an officer, or other person having knowledge of the facts, that the confession was voluntarily made without any threats, coercion, or offer of reward. The defendant must offer testimony that violence, threats of violence, or offers of reward induced the confession to rebut the State's prima facie case. If the defendant does this, then the State must offer all the officers who were present when the defendant was questioned and when the confession was signed, or show why they are not present. Tolbert v. State, 511 So.2d 1368, 1376 (Miss.1987), citing Agee v. State, 185 So.2d 671, 673 (Miss.1966). ¶ 14. This procedure properly occurs before trial in a suppression hearing conducted out of the presence of the jury. M.R.E. 104. In the case sub judice a pretrial motion to suppress was filed and a hearing was held. The State offered the testimony of officers Hoda and Hurt who were present when Seeling was questioned and when the confession was signed. Officer Bill Moran testified that he was present when Seeling was picked up and placed in the patrol car when his rights were read. However, he rode in a separate car to the sheriff's office. Seeling asserts that all of the officers involved did not testify. However, he does not state who was not present to testify. ¶ 15. The State clearly produced the two officers who were present when Seeling was questioned and the confession was signed as caselaw says is mandatory unless there is a valid reason for them not to attend. Simply put, the judge did not find Seeling's claim credible that he was forced to give this statement. This issue is without merit.