Opinion ID: 1847165
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the trial court erred when it denied the appellant's motion to suppress his statement

Text: ¶ 17. O'Halloran argues that his statement should have been suppressed because he did not freely and voluntarily provide that statement given that he was intoxicated at the time of interrogation. This Court's ambit of review is firmly established and defined when the circuit court expressly or implicitly resolves the issue of admissibility of a confession against a defendant. Morgan v. State, 681 So.2d 82, 87 (Miss.1996). When the trial court has overruled a motion to suppress a defendant's confession, we will reverse the trial court's decision only if the trial court's ruling is manifest error or contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. McGowan v. State, 706 So.2d 231, 235 (Miss.1997). In other words, this Court will not reverse a trial court finding that a confession was voluntary and is admissible as long as that trial court applies the correct principles of law and the finding is factually supported by the evidence. See Greenlee v. State, No. 97-KA-00507-SCT, 1998 WL 319209, at , 725 So.2d 816, 825 (Miss.1998) ( citing Haymer v. State, 613 So.2d 837, 839 (Miss.1993)). ¶ 18. The voluntariness of a waiver, or of a confession, is a factual inquiry that must be determined by the trial judge from the totality of the circumstances. Gavin v. State, 473 So.2d 952, 954 (Miss.1985); Stevens v. State, 458 So.2d 726, 729 (Miss.1984). Further, where there is conflicting evidence on a confession's admissibility, this Court will not disturb the court's findings unless it appears clearly contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Wiley v. State, 465 So.2d 318, 320 (Miss.1985). No one factor is dispositive in the totality of circumstances test. Johnson v. State, 511 So.2d 1360, 1365 (Miss.1987). Indeed, [i]ntoxication or sickness does not automatically render a confession involuntary. The admissibility of a confession depends upon the degree of intoxication. Id. In Kemp v. State, 352 So.2d 446, 448 (Miss. 1977), law officers testified that the defendant had been drinking heavily but that he was in control of his faculties, justifying admission of the confession. Other cases hold that intoxication must produce mania to be a defense. See State v. Williams, 208 So.2d 172 (Miss.1968). In Moore v. State, 237 So.2d 844, 849 (Miss. 1970), the court decided there was ample evidence to justify the finding that the defendant, although intoxicated, was in full command of his faculties, that his intoxication was less than mania, that he fully understood and appreciated what he was saying, and that his statements were free and voluntary. See id. ¶ 19. On March 23, 1994, O'Halloran was arrested at 10:00 p.m. and gave a statement at approximately 11:30 p.m. Investigator Calvanese of the Harrison County Sheriff's Department testified in the suppression hearing that O'Halloran, at the time of the statements, did not appear to have been drinking nor did he smell of intoxicants. Thus, Investigator Calvanese deemed it unnecessary to ask O'Halloran if he had consumed any alcohol that day and regarded O'Halloran's statement as voluntary. Investigator LaBlanc of the Biloxi Police Department testified at the hearing that O'Halloran did not appear impaired by or under the influence of any intoxicants at the time of the statement. Investigator LaBlanc also stated that while it is Biloxi Police Department standard procedure to ask the last time the accused has consumed alcohol and, if so, how much, Calvanese did not have the Biloxi Police Department forms and was acting pursuant to the Harrison County questioning procedure. Inspector Burriss of the Biloxi Police Department testified that he finger-printed and photographed O'Halloran prior to O'Halloran's statement. During this time, Burriss detected neither intoxicants on nor intoxication of O'Halloran. ¶ 20. Applying law to the facts at hand, there is no reversible error. Indeed, the testimony of the law enforcement officers demonstrates that O'Halloran was not impaired by intoxicants. Hence, there is no evidence that the trial court's ruling is contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence.