Opinion ID: 1707183
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: whether the state violated agee v. state.

Text: ś 89. Evans argues that the State failed to satisfy Agee v. State, 185 So.2d 671 (Miss. 1966). Specifically, Evans argues that the State failed to call Deputy Lee to rebut Evans' harassment allegations and Sheriff Joe Price to respond to Evans' allegation that Sheriff Price made promises regarding his treatment in the jail. ś 90. In Agee, this Court held Lee v. State, supra 236 Miss. 716, 112 So.2d 254 (1959)], is also authority for the proposition that when, after the State has made out a prima facie case as to the voluntariness of the confession, the accused offers testimony that violence, threats of violence, or offers of reward induced the confession, then the State must offer all the officers who were present when the accused was questioned and when the confession was signed, or give an adequate reason for the absence of any witness. 185 So.2d at 673. ś 91. In Morgan v. State, 681 So.2d 82 (Miss.1996), the defendant alleged that a detective threatened to hit him with his blackjack. This Court held that [t]he prosecution was charged under Agee with putting all of the detectives on the stand who were present when Detective Hall allegedly threatened Morgan. Id. at 89. ś 92. Here, the State called each law enforcement officer who was present when Evans was questioned and when the statements were made. Specifically, the State called Detective Whitney Carvin and FBI Special Agent George Holder and Major Wayne Payne of the Gulfport Police Department. In rebuttal, the State recalled Detective Carvin and called Assistant U.S. Attorney Golden and Gulfport Police Chief George Payne. ś 93. Sheriff Price was not called, nor does the State offer any reason why he was not. However, the trial court heard testimony concerning the assurances by Sheriff Price to Evans that his complaints would be remedied. Moreover, there was no dispute that Sheriff Price spoke with Evans on August 10, 1991, and made such assurances. Given that little conflict existed about Sheriff Price's presence or his assurances, his testimony was not required. ś 94. Evans also argues that Deputy Lee should have been called as a witness by the State. This Court has held that [o]nly those persons who are claimed to have induced a confession through some means of coercion are required to be offered by the State under Agee. Abram v. State, 606 So.2d 1015, 1030 (Miss.1992)( citing Reid v. State, 266 So.2d 21, 26 (Miss.1972)). Evans, however, did not testify that Deputy Lee made any threats or offers of reward which induced his confession. In Thorson v. State, 653 So.2d 876 (Miss.1994), this Court held that the Agee Rule was satisfied despite the fact that the State did not call officers who allegedly were abusive and yelled at the defendant two days prior to his confession. There, this Court held: The principle enunciated in Agee remains sound, but its importance to an accused has receded in view of the strong affirmative mandates of Miranda. In Abram v. State, 606 So.2d 1015, 1030 (Miss.1992), we held Only those persons who are claimed to have induced a confession through some means of coercion are required to be offered by the State under Agee.  We hold that any alleged statement made by Cook and some unidentified person on March 7 at which time Thorson revealed nothing had no bearing on Thorson's confession on the Monday following. Indeed, he never claimed that they did. Here, Thorson informed the officers on Monday, March 9, that he had read and understood his rights, and there is nothing, as above noted, about any of this videotape suggesting coercion or mistreatment of any kind. Mettetal v. State, 602 So.2d 864, 868 (Miss. 1992). Id. at 888. As in Thorson, there is no indication that alleged actions by Deputy Lee contributed or induced Evans' confession. As such, the State was not required to call him as a witness under the Agee Rule. This issue is without merit.