Opinion ID: 1148850
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: the trial court erred in admitting the involuntary confession of justin underwood into evidence in violation of the fifth and sixth amendments to the united states constitution.

Text: ¶ 33. In his third assignment of error, Underwood complains about the admission into evidence of two statements which he made to police on March 9 and 10, 1994. Underwood argues that the statements were not made voluntarily and should have been suppressed at trial. He takes issue with the fact that Officer Barfield transcribed the statements instead of having Underwood write out his own confessions, and points to the errors in the dates of the statements and the use of terms allegedly above his education level as evidence of the unreliability of the statements. ¶ 34. Officers Barfield and Hathcock interviewed Underwood on March 9 regarding the February 5 burglary of Charlie Palmer's home. They read Underwood his rights as he read along at about 2:50 p.m., and Underwood signed a rights waiver at 2:55. They talked with Underwood for about thirty to forty-five minutes, but he denied any knowledge of the burglary. Barfield and Hathcock left Underwood alone and went to a break room for a cup of coffee. Officer Saxton came into the break room and asked to speak to Underwood, and they agreed. Saxton wanted to speak with Underwood, because he knew him from a previous burglary investigation, and they felt comfortable with one another. Although Saxton himself did not reread Underwood his rights, he did ask Underwood if the other officers had read them to him, and Underwood told Saxton that they had and that he understood his rights. Officer Saxton spoke with Underwood for about fifteen or twenty minutes, during which time he was able to convince Underwood to tell the other officers about the burglary. Barfield and Hathcock resumed their interview with Underwood, who proceeded to give a statement in which he admitted to breaking into Charlie Palmer's home on February 5 and taking a bowlful of pennies, a lady's ring, and the pistol that Charlie Palmer retrieved from Underwood's car on March 7. Barfield typed the statement based upon what Underwood told him, and then Underwood read and signed it at 4:30 p.m. At the suppression hearing, all three officers testified that no threats, promises, or intimidation were used to elicit Underwood's statement. ¶ 35. Before Underwood gave his March 10 statement to Officers Barfield and Saxton, in which he confessed to killing Mrs. Harris, the investigators again read Underwood his rights while he read along with a copy. Underwood signed another rights waiver form at 8:05 a.m. Barfield again typed the statement from the facts that Underwood gave him, and Underwood signed it at about 10:15 a.m. after reviewing the statement. Barfield testified both at trial and at the suppression hearing that he believed that Underwood's confession was voluntary, and that no coercion was used to elicit Underwood's statement. Officer Saxton agreed in his testimony at the suppression hearing that Underwood understood his rights, did not want an attorney, and gave his statement freely without force, intimidation, or promises. 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... . [I]n determining whether a confession is freely and voluntarily given the circuit court judge sits as a trier of fact, and this Court should not reverse him unless the circuit judge is manifestly wrong. Herring v. State, 691 So.2d 948, 956 (Miss. 1997) (internal citations omitted). This Court set out its rule for proving the voluntariness of a confession in Agee v. State, 185 So.2d 671 (Miss. 1966). The State has the burden of proving the voluntariness of a confession. This burden is met 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. This makes out a prima facie case for the State on the question of voluntariness. When objection is made to the introduction of the confession, the accused is entitled to a preliminary hearing on the question of the admissibility of the confession. This hearing is conducted in the absence of the jury... . [W]hen, 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 such witness. Agee, 185 So.2d at 673 (citations omitted). Although the importance of the Agee rule has been lessened by the dictates of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), [t]he principle enunciated in Agee remains sound ... Thorson v. State, 653 So.2d 876, 888 (Miss. 1994). In this case, the State satisfied the Agee rule by presenting all of the officers present during Underwood's questioning at the suppression hearing. They testified that no threats or promises were made to induce Underwood to make his statements on March 9 and 10. The investigators also satisfied the warning requirements of Miranda by informing Underwood of his rights before questioning began each day. ¶ 36. Underwood claims that he invoked his right against self-incrimination during the March 9 interrogation by refusing to answer the investigators' questions for forty minutes. Once warnings have been given, the subsequent procedure is clear. If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease. Miranda, 384 U.S. at 473-74, 86 S.Ct. at 1627-28. However, at the suppression hearing, Officers Barfield and Hathcock testified that Underwood never refused to speak to them, but initially denied any involvement in the burglary. They both testified that Underwood understood his rights, including his right to remain silent, voluntarily spoke with them, and never requested an attorney. Officer Saxton also confirmed the testimony of Barfield and Hathcock that no one promised anything to Underwood or threatened him in any way, and that Underwood stated that he understood his rights before voluntarily signing the rights waiver form. ¶ 37. In Neal v. State, 451 So.2d 743 (Miss. 1984), this Court approved the conduct of the interrogating officer who after a day and a half of intermittent questioning, ceased his interrogation until the next day upon Neal's request. Neal, 451 So.2d at 755. The next day, Neal gave his statement to the officer in which he confessed to the kidnapping and murder of the victim. Id. at 749, 751. This Court held that Neal's confession was made voluntarily and that he knowingly waived his right against self-incrimination due to the fact that the interrogating officer stopped questioning Neal whenever he asked, and because Neal was re-Mirandized each day before questioning began. Id. at 750-56. Here, Underwood never asked the interrogating officers to cease questioning. The March 9 interrogation, including the rights waiver and time to type the statement, only lasted a little over an hour and a half. The total time for the rights waiver, questioning, and statement typing in the March 10 statement was a little over two hours. Underwood was informed of his rights each day before questioning began. Based upon this evidence from the suppression hearing, Judge Toney properly held that Underwood's statements were made voluntarily and were admissible. ¶ 38. On both the March 9 and March 10 statements, Officer Barfield accidentally wrote February instead of March as the date on which the statements were signed. However, the correct month did appear at the top of both statements. When Barfield later found his error, he corrected the dates. Although Officers Hathcock and Saxton testified that normal procedure would call for having a witness initial any changes to a statement, Officer Barfield did not have Underwood initial the date changes, because he felt that they were merely clerical and were not part of the substance of the statements. Barfield testified that for a substantive change, he would have a witness initial the statement change. Since the date corrections did not change the contents of Underwood's statements, we do not find that the trial judge erred in refusing to suppress them on that basis. Judge Toney allowed the statements to be admitted along with the testimony regarding the changes to the statement dates for the jury to determine whether the date changes affected their reliability. We defer to the jury's obvious finding that the date changes did not render the statements unreliable. ¶ 39. In the similar case of Chisolm v. State, 529 So.2d 630 (Miss. 1988), we confirmed the circuit court's finding that a confession was voluntary where the officers taking the defendant's statement testified that the defendant signed a rights waiver form after they explained his rights to him, the defendant never requested that the interrogation stop nor asked for an attorney, and the officers testified that no threats or promises were made. Chisolm, 529 So.2d at 633-34. In that case, too, the confession was transcribed by the officer taking the statement and then signed by the defendant. Id. at 633. Based upon the officers' testimony in this case, the trial judge did not err in finding that Underwood's statements were made voluntarily.