Opinion ID: 1775659
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: did the trial court err in precluding the defense from arguing to the jury the voluntariness of cole's confession?

Text: Cole moved to suppress his confession, alleging that it was not voluntarily given. After conducting a suppression hearing, the trial court admitted the confession into evidence. Cole argues on appeal that the trial court, after admitting the confession, improperly prohibited him from putting on evidence and argument as to its voluntariness. This argument is without merit. Where the trial court has admitted a confession into evidence, it is still within the province of the jury to determine whether the statement is true and voluntary, and what weight and credibility should be accorded to it. Wilson v. State, 451 So.2d 724 (Miss. 1984); Rhone v. State, 254 So.2d 750 (Miss. 1971). Thus, once a confession has been admitted, either party has a right to introduce before the jury the same evidence which was submitted [at the suppression hearing] as well as any other evidence relative to the weight and credibility of the confession. Rhone, 254 So.2d at 754. The record in the case at bar simply does not support Cole's claim that he was prevented from arguing voluntariness to the jury. We note the following areas explored by defense counsel in the presence of the jury: 1) whether Cole was tired when he confessed, 2) whether, at the time he confessed, Cole had been at the sheriff's office all day, 3) whether Cole was separated from his family during questioning, and 4) whether Cole had only a third grade education. During cross-examination of one of the officers present when Cole confessed, defense counsel questioned the officer extensively about the circumstances of the interrogation, prompting the following exchange: BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Your Honor, this statement has been introduced; it has been ruled admissible; and we object to any further questioning in this regard. BY THE COURT: Let's move along, Mr. Tucker. We note that the trial court did not sustain the objection, but instead told defense counsel to move along, an instruction which we deem eminently appropriate, since defense counsel had consumed nine (9) pages of the record questioning the officer about the exact time the confession was given. Moreover, the record reveals that after the objection defense counsel continued to cross-examine the officer about voluntariness, asking 1) whether Cole was threatened during questioning, and 2) whether Cole asked for his high blood pressure medicine during questioning. Cole also argues on appeal that the trial court prevented him from challenging the confession during closing argument. The record reveals, however, that the trial court simply told defense counsel not to argue outside the record. Having reviewed the record thoroughly, we are of the opinion that Cole was not prevented from challenging the voluntariness of the confession and this assignment of error is without merit.