Opinion ID: 1775413
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: did the trial court err in admitting appellant's oral and written statements into evidence?

Text: Counsel for the State introduced three statements made by the appellant to law enforcement officers. In approaching the admissibility of the preceding statements, the common thread among all these is whether these statements were voluntary. In other words, did the accused effectively waive her Miranda warnings? In Neal v. State, 451 So.2d 743, (Miss. 1984) this Court held: We emphasize that the mere giving of the Miranda warnings, no matter how meticulous, no matter how often repeated, does not render admissible any inculpatory statement thereafter given by the accused. The rights of which the accused is Miranda-warned must thereafter be waived  intelligently, knowingly and voluntarily. Whether there has been an intelligent, knowing and voluntary waiver is essentially a factual inquiry to be determined by the trial judge from the totality of the circumstances. Neal, 451 So.2d at 753. Keeping this rationale in mind, this Court must determine whether Mrs. Kniep made an intelligent, voluntary waiver of her Miranda rights. Mrs. Kniep's counsel claims that she was emotionally distraught, intoxicated, and in a confused mental state and could not have made an intelligent waiver of her rights. With respect to the effect of intoxication on the voluntariness of a confession, this Court addresses that particular issue in Stevens, supra. Citing State v. Williams, 208 So.2d 172, 175 (Miss. 1968), this Court held that ... where the defendant was in an acute, rampant state of intoxication equivalent to mania, any waiver of constitutional right could not be voluntary and intentional and the defendant's statement should be excluded. Stevens, 458 So.2d at 729. With this rationale in mind, this Court holds that the condition of Mrs. Kniep at the time of the statement, according to the hospital witness, does not meet the standards set out in Stevens. The nurse said that she noticed an odor of alcohol on Mrs. Kniep's breath, but nonetheless, the nurse opined that Mrs. Kniep appeared to know what she was doing and what she was talking about. Ultimately, the test in all cases remains, After all of the Miranda warnings have been given and rights articulated therein respected, has there been under `the totality of the circumstances' a knowing and voluntary waiver of the accused privilege against self-incrimination? Jones v. State, 461 So.2d 686, 696 (Miss. 1984). Along these lines, this Court in Jones also writes, The State has the burden of proving all facts prerequisite to admissibility beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 697. Under the totality of this record, this Court upholds the trial judge's determination that the defendant's statements were freely, intelligently and voluntarily given and therefore admissible into evidence.