Opinion ID: 1735130
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Whether the trial court erred when it admitted into evidence the oral statement of the defendant made to Lieutenant Eddie Coleman on April 12, 1996.

Text: ¶ 27. Baldwin challenges the trial judge's admission of the statements concerning the whereabouts of his car that he made to the Sheriff's Department several hours after his arrest and while he was in the patrol car. The statements that Baldwin made to the officers were obviously untruthful, and they were introduced at trial in an effort to show that Baldwin had concealed his crime by hiding and later destroying his car. ¶ 28. A criminal defendant assailing the voluntariness of his statement has a due process right to a reliable determination that the statement was in fact voluntarily given. Gavin v. State, 473 So.2d 952, 954 (Miss.1985); Smith v. State, 737 So.2d 377, 382 (Miss.Ct.App.1998). The trial judge sits as the trier of fact and must determine whether the incriminating statement was freely and voluntarily given. The judge should determine whether the criminal defendant was advised of his rights, including the right against self-incrimination as set forth in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Then the judge should ascertain, under a totality of the circumstances and beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant's statement was freely and voluntarily given, and was not the result of force, threat, or intimidation. See Smith v. State at 382. ¶ 29. In the present case, the trial judge conducted a suppression hearing outside the presence of the jury, as required by law. See Frost v. State, 483 So.2d 1345, 1350 (Miss.1986). During the hearing, Greg Wright and Frank Baker of the Lowndes County Sheriff's Office testified that they had advised Baldwin of his Miranda rights, and that he freely and voluntarily waived his rights and chose to speak with the officers concerning the whereabouts of his car. Since Baldwin did not testify to refute those statement, [2] the trial judge's ruling to admit into evidence the statements made by Baldwin is not manifestly erroneous or reversible error. ¶ 30. Baldwin's argument on appeal is that neither officer who actually heard and testified to the incriminating statements was present when Baldwin was advised of his rights, and that, given the lapse in time and the fact that Baldwin's custody was given over to different officers than the ones who originally arrested him, Baldwin should have been advised of his rights a second time. Baldwin relies on Underwood v. State, 708 So.2d 18, 29-30 (Miss. 1998). In that case, Underwood was questioned by two officers for 30-45 minutes. The officers left the room when Underwood did not reveal anything about the burglary at issue. Then, an officer that Underwood knew went into the room and convinced Underwood to confess to his involvement in the burglary. The Court ruled that Underwood had knowingly and voluntarily incriminated himself. In that case, the third officer had asked Underwood if he had been advised of his rights and understood them. Underwood never indicated a desire to cease the questioning or have an attorney present, and Underwood was re-Mirandized on each subsequent day of questioning. ¶ 31. Nevertheless, neither Underwood nor Miranda requires that a criminal defendant be advised of his rights every time there is a brief pause in questioning. Miranda simply requires that [i]f the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease. 384 U.S. at 473-74, 86 S.Ct. at 1627-28. In the present case, Baldwin was in continuous custody from the time of his arrest until the time that he was placed in the car with Officers Mulligan and Coleman. It is not clear how much or how frequently the officers of the Sheriff's Department questioned Baldwin during the hours when all were present at his house to execute the search warrant. It is clear, however, that Baldwin knew the officers wanted to find the 1975 Monte Carlo; the officers' questions were all related to that purpose, beginning immediately after Baldwin was read his rights. Baldwin never indicated at any time to the officers that he wished to invoke his rights or that he preferred not to answer their questions concerning the whereabouts of his car. Because Baldwin was advised of his rights, but never invoked those rights, the trial judge was not manifestly erroneous in ruling that Baldwin had freely and voluntarily made the statements to Coleman, and that Coleman could testify to the same.