Opinion ID: 1832691
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the trial court erred in failing to suppress the statement given by kircher.

Text: ¶ 26. Kircher contends that there was insufficient factual evidence to support the trial court's failure to suppress his statements. The United States Supreme Court pronounced the law regarding the admissibility of a defendant's waiver of his privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Miranda requires proof that the waiver was voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently made. Id. at 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602. ¶ 27. The standard of reviewing the admission of a confession is well-settled. Determining whether a confession is admissible is a finding of fact which is not disturbed unless the trial judge applied an incorrect legal standard, committed manifest error, or the decision was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Wright v. State, 730 So.2d 1106, 1108 (Miss.1998) (quoting Lee v. State, 631 So.2d 824, 826 (Miss.1994)). See also Willie v. State, 585 So.2d 660, 665 (Miss.1991). ¶ 28. The voluntariness of a waiver, or of a confession, is a factual inquiry that must be determined by the trial judge from the totality of the circumstances. O'Halloran v. State, 731 So.2d 565, 570 (Miss.1999); Gavin v. State, 473 So.2d 952, 954 (Miss.1985); Stevens v. State, 458 So.2d 726, 729 (Miss.1984). No one factor is dispositive in the totality of circumstances test. Johnson v. State, 511 So.2d 1360, 1365 (Miss.1987). The applicable standard for determining whether a confession is voluntary is whether, taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the statement is the product of the accused's free and rational choice. Herring v. State, 691 So.2d 948, 956 (Miss. 1997). Once a determination of voluntariness is made by the trial court, the defendant bears a heavy burden in attempting to reverse the trial court's finding that the confession is admissible. Blue v. State, 674 So.2d 1184, 1204 (Miss.1996). ¶ 29. At the time of his confession, Kircher was in the emergency room with two self-inflicted stab wounds, neither of which turned out to be life threatening. After receiving permission from Dr. Choateau to talk with Kircher, Officer Pennington entered the room with three other deputies. Pennington asked Kircher whether he wanted to talk. Kircher responded in the affirmative. Pennington then advised Kircher of what he was charged and read him his Miranda rights. Kircher stated that he understood the rights read to him by Officer Pennington and gave a detailed statement as to the stabbing death of the victim. ¶ 30. Kircher now contends that he did not intelligently waive his rights. The test to determine whether a defendant's rights were intelligently waived is: whether the words used by the officers, in view of the age, intelligence and demeanor of the individual being interrogated, implied a clear understanding of all of his rights. The court must then determine objectively whether the words used by the interrogating officers were sufficient to convey the implied warning. Jenkins v. State, 214 So.2d 470, 472 (Miss. 1968). ¶ 31. When the voluntariness of a confession is questioned, the defendant has a due process right to a determination that the confession was in fact voluntarily given. Stokes v. State, 548 So.2d 118, 121 (Miss.1989). The procedural rule of Agee v. State, 185 So.2d 671, 673 (Miss.1966), requires that the trial court hold an evidentiary hearing upon the accused's testimony that the confession was involuntarily given. The State bears the burden of proving all facts prerequisite to admissibility beyond a reasonable doubt. Cox v. State, 586 So.2d 761, 763 (Miss.1991); Neal v. State, 451 So.2d 743, 753 (Miss.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1098, 105 S.Ct. 607, 83 L.Ed.2d 716 (1984). This burden is met and a prima facie case made out by the testimony of an officer, or other person having knowledge of the facts, that the confession was voluntarily made without any threats, coercion, or offer of reward. Cox, 586 So.2d at 763 (citing Agee, 185 So.2d at 673). After the State has made out its prima facie case, the defendant must rebut the State's evidence by offering testimony that violence, threats of violence, or offers of reward induced the confession. Id. ¶ 32. At the suppression hearing, in accordance with the Agee rule, the State presented testimony of the four law enforcement officers present at the confession, who all stated that the statement was free and voluntary and made without threats, coercion, or offer of reward. They testified that Kircher stated he understood the Miranda rights as read to him by Officer Pennington. All of the officers testified that Kircher seemed alert and willing to talk. Most importantly, Officer Pennington asked Dr. Chouteau for permission to talk with Kircher prior to taking the confession. The officers testified that Kircher gave clear answers as to what occurred regarding the killing of McCrary. ¶ 33. Additionally, the emergency room nurse, Marianne Rainer, who personally attended to Kircher, testified that Kircher seemed alert and calm and did not appear to be in that much pain at the time of questioning. She stated that Kircher gave pertinent answers to questions and that Kircher seemed composed and answered questions readily. Nurse Rainer corroborated that Officer Pennington had in fact advised Kircher of his Miranda rights, of which she was aware due to watching television programs. ¶ 34. Furthermore, the emergency room physician, Dr. Chouteau, testified that although Kircher's blood pressure was a little low initially, his other vital signs were normal. Dr. Chouteau stated that at the time he authorized the officers to speak with Kircher, Kircher was alert, oriented, and that Kircher was not in shock. In fact, the record reflects that Kircher's blood pressure improved shortly thereafter to 135/70. Dr. Chouteau was absolutely sure that no morphine sulfate was administered to Kircher in the emergency room. ¶ 35. Upon the State's presentation of a prima facie case of admissibility, the burden shifted to Kircher to provide evidence to rebut the State's assertion. Cox, 586 So.2d at 763 (citing Agee, 185 So.2d at 673). Kircher argues that he presented sufficient evidence of his condition at the time of the confession to meet his burden of showing the involuntariness of his statement. Kircher contends that: (1) he did not recall having any rights recited to him; (2) he was in early stages of shock; (3) he had lost one quart of blood and had received several doses of morphine; (4) he had been prepared for surgery; (5) he was suffering from drug intoxication from the wrongfully prescribed anti-depressant medication; (6) he was mentally distraught and voiced to the law enforcement officers his desire to die; (7) he had already attempted suicide by stabbing himself in the abdomen and chest; (8) he was in pain, and during the interrogation lay on the hospital gurney groaning and grimacing; (9) he was presented no waiver of rights form, nor was the waiver process and procedure explained to him at any time during the interrogation; (10) he was eighteen years old and from a foreign state away from friends and family; (11) he was suffering from two personality disorders; (12) he had been losing sleep as a result of the anti-depressant medications prescribed at COPAC; and (13) he had an intravenous drip in his arm. ¶ 36. Kircher argues that after reviewing and considering the foregoing facts and considering the totality of the circumstances, the trial court's determination that Kircher's statement was freely and voluntarily given was erroneous. Kircher contends that his mental condition at the time of the confession rendered him incapable of intelligently waiving his rights. Specifically, Kircher points to drugs prescribed at COPAC as well as drugs that he claims were administered to him at the hospital and argues that he was involuntarily intoxicated. However, we note that Kircher did not plead insanity, and his expert, Dr. Owen, clearly acknowledged that Kircher knew right from wrong under the M'Naughten rule. The State did not need to offer testimony from the expert who had examined Kircher at Whitfield, regarding Kircher's sanity, because sanity is not at issue here. Kircher had also voluntarily admitted himself into the COPAC unit for treatment, and now claims that doctors there gave him certain antidepressant drugs which influenced his involuntary intoxication during the killing and subsequent confession. Dr. Owen, Kircher's expert, was clearly allowed to state his opinion to the judge and jury that Kircher was under the influence of involuntarily intoxicating drugs. Additionally, the jury was subsequently instructed in Instruction D-6 as follows: The Court instructs the jury that if a person is in an intoxicated or drugged condition which has been involuntarily produced and deprives him of his capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law then the intoxicated or drugged condition may be considered in determination of the existence of malice aforethought as an element of the offense charged. If you believe from the evidence in this case that at the time Robert McCrary was killed, that Neil Kircher's mental capacity was impaired by the antidepressant drugs which were administered to him by a licensed physician while he was committed to a treatment center and said evidence raises any reasonable doubt in you mind whether Neil Kircher formed the necessary malice aforethought and specific intent to kill then you must find Neil Kircher not guilty of murder and then consider the offense of manslaughter. ¶ 37. In Blue v. State, 674 So.2d 1184 (Miss.1996), this Court held that the mental condition of a defendant does not in and of itself render the confession inadmissible, but instead [is] but one factor to consider among the totality of the circumstances of a confession and interrogation. Id. at 1205 (citing Neal v. State, 451 So.2d 743 (Miss.1984)). This Court has stated that [i]ntoxication or sickness does not automatically render a confession involuntary. The admissibility of a confession depends on the degree of intoxication. Johnson v. State, 511 So.2d 1360, 1365 (Miss.1987). This is exactly the issue posed here; whether Kircher was involuntarily intoxicated and to what degree, if any? ¶ 38. Here, the learned trial court had disputed evidence submitted to him by the State and defense regarding Kircher's degree of intoxication. The State claimed that Kircher was not involuntarily intoxicated, and the defense argued otherwise. The trial court resolved the issue applying the correct legal standard and considered the totality of the circumstances in arriving at his decision that the confession was free and voluntary. Again, the applicable standard for determining whether a confession is voluntary is whether, considering the totality of the circumstances, the statement is the product of the accused's free and rational choice. Herring v. State, 691 So.2d 948, 956 (Miss.1997). This Court has stated, in addressing whether a confession to murder was voluntarily given, Where, on conflicting evidence, the court [resolves the issue of admissibility of a confession against a defendant] this Court generally must affirm. Stokes v. State, 548 So.2d 118, 122 (Miss.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1029, 110 S.Ct. 742, 107 L.Ed.2d 759 (1990). ¶ 39. There is very little variation in the testimony of the law enforcement officers. In their opinion Kircher was alert, aware of his surroundings, and answered all their questions rationally, and thus, he voluntarily waived his Miranda rights read to him by Officer Pennington. Their testimony mirrors that of the attending doctor and nurse. The testimony of the emergency room physician, Dr. Chouteau, and the attending nurse, Rainer, corroborates the officers' view that Kircher understood everything they asked, answered all their questions, was alert, stable, oriented and not in shock. Dr. Chouteau stated that no morphine sulfate was administered to Kircher in the emergency room, but rather that it occurred postoperatively and subsequent to being placed in the ICU. ¶ 40. Dr. Owen, Kircher's expert psychiatrist, testified contrary to the view expressed by the officers, emergency room doctor and nurse. Dr. Owen opined that Kircher was involuntarily intoxicated and thus could not have voluntarily consented to his emergency room confession. Kircher could not remember everything that was asked of him and remembered very few details about the incident. ¶ 41. The trial judge had all these factual circumstances before him, albeit conflicting evidence. He applied the correct legal standard, considered the totality of the circumstances, and held that Kircher's emergency room confession was free and voluntarily, and thus admissible. Herring, 691 So.2d at 956. Kircher had a heavy burden to overcome, and he failed in that attempt. Blue v. State, 674 So.2d at 1184. A hospital emergency room setting where law enforcement officers seeking to question a defendant who may have been administered drugs is one in which officers should be very cautious because of obvious questions concerning voluntariness that may arise. Prior to questioning a defendant in this situation, officers should always seek the permission of the attending physician, who is in a better posture to know a patient's condition. The officers here adhered to this word of caution. ¶ 42. The trial judge obviously gave greater weight to the testimony of the emergency room doctor and attending nurse, as well as to all of the law enforcement officers, when compared to the testimony of Kircher and his expert psychiatrist, Dr. Owen. The trial court applied the correct legal standard, considered the conflicting evidence, and resolved the issue of admissibility based on the totality of the circumstances. Thus, this Court generally must affirm. Stokes, 548 So.2d at 122. Additionally, the trial judge allowed Kircher's expert, Dr. Owen, to testify regarding Kircher's involuntary intoxication. The jury heard and considered his testimony. Also, the jury was properly instructed by the trial judge with Instruction D-6 regarding the possible impairment of Kircher's mental capacity due to the drugs. We hold that the trial judge correctly found that the confession was free and voluntary, thus admissible in evidence. ¶ 43. Finally, we note that even were this error, which it is not, it would be harmless error in view of the overwhelming evidence against Kircher, all of which has been set out above. This Court in Cannaday v. State, 455 So.2d 713 (Miss. 1984), held that the trial court's error in admitting the defendant's incriminating statement was harmless insofar as the guilt phase of the trial was concerned given the overwhelming evidence of guilt. In addition to the blood serology evidence implicating Kircher, there was eye witness testimony identifying Kircher as the person who asked where the knives were kept in Jitney Jungle shortly before the killing. Other witnesses placed the stolen truck driven by Kircher at the scene of the killing and at the church near the cotton field to which Kircher was observed running shortly before the officers closed in and arrested him. The officers recovered Kircher's shirt and a knife upon being told by Kircher where to locate those items. Kircher did not contest his very incriminating statement made in the cotton field and made no attempt to suppress it. Also, in Watts v. State, 717 So.2d 314 (Miss.1998), this Court found harmless the error by the trial court in allowing evidence that the defendant used the money from the armed robbery for which he was convicted to purchase crack cocaine. Likewise, any suggestion of error here, although we clearly find none, is, nevertheless, harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the overwhelming weight of the evidence against Kircher. There is no merit to this issue.