Opinion ID: 2489946
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress richardson's statement.

Text: ¶ 14. We apply the following standard when reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress: [S]ince the trial court sits as the fact-finder when determining the issue of whether an accused's confession has been intelligently, knowingly and voluntarily given, we will only reverse the trial court's determination of this issue when such determination is manifestly wrong. Glasper v. State, 914 So.2d 708, 716 (Miss.2005) (citing Manix v. State, 895 So.2d 167, 180-81 (Miss.2005)) (other citations omitted). We will not disturb the trial court's determination on the admissibility of a confession unless the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard, committed manifest error, or rendered a decision which was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Glasper, 914 So.2d at 716 (citing Thorson v. State, 895 So.2d 85, 115 (Miss.2004)) (other citations omitted). A confession is admissible if the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's confession was voluntary by showing that such confession was not the product of promises, threats or inducement. Id. at 717 (citing Manix, 895 So.2d at 180) (other citations omitted). With regard to the trial court's findings on the admissibility of a confession, we have stated that [w]here, on conflicting evidence, the [trial] court makes such findings, this Court generally must affirm. Lesley v. State, 606 So.2d 1084, 1091 (Miss.1992) (citing Stokes v. State, 548 So.2d 118, 122 (Miss.1989)). ¶ 15. Richardson argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress, because the statement that he made to police is inadmissible under Miranda. Richardson supports this contention by claiming that his requests for counsel were not honored. After Richardson called 911 and turned himself over to police, he was taken into custody and given his Miranda rights. Richardson then made a statement to Investigator Cooper. Investigator Cooper typed the statement on a Lowndes County Sheriff's Department form, and Richardson signed the statement. Richardson admitted in this statement to hitting Evans on the head with a baseball bat and taking both of Evans's wallets. Richardson signed a waiver-of-rights form prior to signing the typed statement. ¶ 16. The trial court held a pretrial suppression hearing on Richardson's motion and heard testimony from Richardson, Investigator Cooper, and Deputy Greg Wright. Richardson testified at the hearing that he repeatedly had asked Investigator Cooper and the other investigating officers for legal assistance. Richardson testified that he first had asked to speak with a legal assistant when the police initially had arrived to arrest him after his 911 call. Richardson said that an officer had told him that he would be able to speak with an attorney at the Sheriff's Department. Richardson testified that when he had asked to speak with an attorney at the Sheriff's Department, the investigator immediately had left the room. He testified that he had made his requests again and that the investigator had continued to question him. Richardson also testified that he had been read his Miranda rights initially at the convenience store where he was picked up by police and that he was not sure if he had been read his Miranda rights at the Sheriff's Department. ¶ 17. When asked why he had made a statement to Investigator Cooper after requesting an attorney, Richardson stated: Heinsisted I make the statement. He insisted I make the statement. Our well, Ithat wasthat was pretty much it. Hehe just, you knowhe pretty much insisted I make a statement. I have told him I'd like to sit there and talk to my mother and a lawor ayou know, a legal assistance, but typically mainly my mother, probably, but, you knowand he just insisted I makeI make the statement. When asked at the hearing why he had signed a waiver of rights, Richardson invoked the Fifth Amendment. ¶ 18. Investigator Cooper typed Richardson's statement and witnessed Richardson's waiver of rights. Cooper testified that Richardson had requested legal assistance neither at the convenience store nor at the Sheriff's Department. He also testified that he never insisted that Richardson make a statement. Deputy Wright testified that he never insisted that Richardson give a statement and that he never had heard Richardson request counsel. ¶ 19. After hearing all of the testimony, the trial court denied Richardson's motion to suppress. The trial court found that Richardson had not invoked his right to counsel and that Richardson knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily had given his statement to police. ¶ 20. The trial court was presented with contradicting testimony regarding the voluntariness of Richardson's statements. On one side, Richardson consistently claimed that he had asked to speak with an attorney and that his requests had been ignored. On the other hand, two law-enforcement officers testified that Richardson never had made these requests and that he voluntarily had given the statement, signed a written statement, and signed a waiver of rights. When viewing all of the evidence as a whole from the record before us, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Richardson's motion to suppress his statement. Accordingly, we find that this issue is without merit.