Opinion ID: 1611371
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 18

Heading: the oral statement to woodward's employer

Text: Moulds testified that he asked Woodward whether he would like to call anybody and he said he would like to call Mrs. Harrigill, his boss. Moulds then placed the call for Woodward because it was a long-distance, credit card call, from the secretary's office in the district attorney's office. Moulds, the sheriff and a deputy sheriff sat there listening and overheard Woodward's side of the conversation. Susan Harrigill, owner of Harrigill Refuge Services, a trucking company, testified that she employed Woodward and owned the truck driven by Paul Woodward. On the evening of July 24, 1986, she received a telephone call, which she recounted as follows: Someone said that there's someone here who wants to speak with you. Then Paul took the phone, and he said, Hello. And I said, Paul, where are you? He said, Hattiesburg Jail. I said, What's happened? He said, They have charged me with capital murder. I said, Did you do it? He said, Yes, I did. ... . ... I said, Why did you do it? He said, I don't know. I said, I didn't know you carried a gun. He said, Most people didn't  either most people or most folks. She stated that no law enforcement officer requested her to ask these questions of Woodward. She further stated that it was Moulds who said, There's somebody here who wants to speak to you. She testified that about ten days later, Moulds called her stating that he overheard her telephone conversation with Woodward. For that reason Moulds knew to contact Harrigill to testify. The trial judge found as follows: We shall now address the oral statement made to Mrs. Harrigill, the employer of the Defendant. This statement in the opinion of this Court does not fall within the criteria of Miranda under the following cases: McElroy v. State, Brown v. State , and McBride v. State. The phone call that was made was for the benefit of the Defendant, and this Court finds that there was no law enforcement officer on the phone with the Defendant and Mrs. Harrigill, and that the call was not done as a subterfuge to the interrogation by any law enforcement officer through Mrs. Harrigill. That this Court finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement of the Defendant in the form of a confession was for the benefit of the Defendant and was done by him to notify his mother and his employer concerning personal matters. The evidentiary hearing in this matter reveals that it is uncontradicted that the oral statement of the Defendant to Mrs. Harrigill is free and voluntary, and that there was no threats, force, coercion or intimidation of the Defendant. Mrs. Harrigill testified that there was no collusion between herself and any law enforcement official, and that she asked the Defendant questions out of her own curiosity, and that the Defendant spoke to her about his actions. There is absolutely no doubt that this oral statement is free and voluntary, and based thereon, it is the ruling of this Court that the same would be admissible. Woodward submits that the telephone conversation constituted a custodial interrogation because the officers placed the call and that it should have been suppressed because of a failure to provide Woodward with the Miranda warnings. In Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520, 107 S.Ct. 1931, 95 L.Ed.2d 458, reh'g. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 107 S.Ct. 3278, 97 L.Ed.2d 782 (1987), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the defendant, despite indicating that he did not wish to be questioned further without a lawyer present, was not subjected to the functional equivalent of police interrogation by permitting his wife to see and talk with him. In both Mauro and the instant case, no officers questioned the defendant, there is no evidence that the permission for the conversation was a psychological ploy, there is no evidence that the officers arranged the conversation for the purpose of eliciting incriminating statements; the presence of the police officer was known by the defendant; and merely allowing such conversations would not cause the defendant to feel that he was being coerced to incriminate himself. Further, the mere possibility of incrimination does not mean that an interrogation occurred. Mauro is entirely consistent with prior Mississippi case law. Dycus v. State, 440 So.2d 246, 256 (Miss. 1983); Brown v. State, 293 So.2d 425, 427-28 (Miss. 1974). It is this Court's opinion that the trial judge properly admitted the oral statement to Woodward's employer. The trial judge is affirmed on admission of all confessions.