Opinion ID: 1780236
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Confession After Arrest

Text: ¶ 27. Moore says his statement given while in custody following an illegal arrest must be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree. Moore acknowledges, however, that a confession given in such a situation is not per se inadmissible. Coleman v. State, 592 So.2d 517, 521 (Miss. 1991). Thus, Moore contends that this Court must assess the statement's ultimate admissibility by examining the five factors [3] established by the United States Supreme Court in Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975), and adopted by this Court in Hall v. State, 427 So.2d 957, 959-60 (Miss.1983). ¶ 28. We need not engage in the requested Brown analysis because, as discussed supra, Moore's arrest was not illegal. Moore gave a statement while he was in custody pursuant to a lawful arrest. As such, Brown and Hall are inapposite, and Moore's argument that the statement was fruit of the poisonous tree consequently fails. See Glasper v. State, 914 So.2d 708, 722 (Miss.2005); Jones, 841 So.2d at 127. This portion of Moore's second assignment of error is meritless.