Opinion ID: 1903593
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether the trial court erred in denying pruitt's motion to suppress his confessions.

Text: ¶ 15. At trial, Pruitt claimed that he was coerced into confessing by threats that he would receive the death penalty if he did not. He has abandoned this claim on appeal and now alleges only that his confession was involuntary due to his intoxication and that his free will was overcome by the suggestion of Deputy Bangs that it would go better for him if he confessed. Pruitt also cites his eighth-grade education as a factor the trial court should have considered in suppressing his confessions, although he cites no authority for that proposition. ¶ 16. We have recently held that: 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. Further, where there is conflicting evidence on a confession's admissibility, this Court will not disturb the court's findings unless it appears clearly contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. O'Halloran v. State, 731 So.2d 565, 570-71 (Miss.1999)(internal citations omitted). See also Johnson v. State, 511 So.2d 1360, 1365 (Miss.1987)(Intoxication ... does not automatically render a confession involuntary. The admissibility of a confession depends upon the degree of intoxication). ¶ 17. The record reflects evidence that Pruitt had been drinking on the morning of his arrest, and he claimed to have been drinking heavily the night before. Pruitt said in his confession to Detective Ruspoli that his arrest took place at about 1:00 in the afternoon, but his first confession to Deputy Bangs did not take place until 5:45 that night, and his second confession to Detective Ruspoli did not take place until later at 8:10 that night. Furthermore, Deputy Bangs, Detective Ruspoli, and several other witnesses all testified that Pruitt did not appear to be intoxicated at the time of his confessions. Finally, Deputy Bangs categorically denied making any coercive statements to Pruitt that it would go better for him if he confessed. ¶ 18. In sum, Pruitt has failed to show that the trial court's findings regarding the voluntariness of his confessions were clearly against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. This issue is without merit.