Opinion ID: 1170636
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Ash Testimony

Text: In Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1611, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 10 A.L.R.3d 974, reh. den. 385 U.S. 890, 87 S.Ct. 11, 17 L.Ed.2d 121, recognition was given to the fact that admissions or confessions of the prisoner, when voluntarily and freely made, has always ranked high in the scale of incriminating evidence. Also, in 22A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 730, p. 1025, it is stated as a general rule: Statements, declarations, and admissions by accused from which an inference of guilt may be drawn are admissible in evidence against him. It is the contention of appellant that Ash was under the influence of drugs when Sims' admission was made to him and that Ash should not therefore be allowed to testify. We should point out that one of the attorneys for Sims cross-examined Ash very extensively about his use of drugs and the matter was before the jury with no restrictions on the defense's inquiry concerning the matter. The witness admitted freely that he had been using various kinds of drugs for several years; that they had ill effects, sometimes causing hallucinations and impairing one's memory to a degree. However, he had been in jail two weeks before Sims came in. At the time he came into the jail, he had been searched and his injection machine had been taken from him. He went through certain withdrawal pains, and, as he explained, was getting fairly well over such when Sims came to jail. After Sims was incarcerated, Ash smoked hashish (a derivative of marijuana) in a pipe which was passed back and forth between Sims and himself. He admitting getting high on the drug after a time. The witness testified nevertheless that he thought he always knew what he was saying; and that there was no question about his recollection of the conversation testified to. The witness several times claimed he was relating only those facts he was sure of. Several times he declined to testify to things which he said he was not sure about because, as he explained, he was under oath. In United States ex rel. Lemon v. Pate, 7 Cir., 427 F.2d 1010, 1014, it was said of a witness who was a user of drugs, the court had ample opportunity to consider the competency of the witness and must have been satisfied in that respect. In our judgment, the court said, the fact that the witness was an addict was a matter to be considered in connection with his credibility and the weight which should be given to his testimony but not his competency. [4] Also, there was a question pertaining to the admissibility of testimony offered by a witness in United States v. Hicks, 3 Cir., 389 F.2d 49, 50. The witness admitted she used drugs. Also, there were questions about her mental imbalance and her moral character. The court held, the competence of a witness is a matter to be decided in the trial court's sound discretion. We consider the testimony of Ash, in the case before us, to be competent and admissible, as long as the trial court in its sound discretion saw fit to admit it. The credibility of the witness and the weight to be given such testimony were matters for the jury to decide. [5] Although the defense brief suggests the defendant lacked sufficient mental capacity to make an admission at the time he talked to Ash, no evidence of insanity was offered. The attorney who orally argued appellant's case on appeal admitted it was decided at the last minute not to rely on that defense. He explained that the defense did not go on with an insanity plea because there were too many grey areas  because sometimes the defendant was sane and sometimes he was not. In any event, the attorney stated, he took the responsibility and elected not to offer evidence of insanity. Prior to receiving testimony as to the admissions which Sims made to Ash, the trial court held a lengthy hearing in chambers, out of the presence of the jury. The court was aware of the medical, pyschiatric, and psychological reports contained in the record. In fact, the same judge had previously admitted such reports in connection with a hearing pertaining to the triability of defendant. Not only has there been an absence of any showing that defendant was insane when he talked to Ash, but there was ample evidence from which the trial court could find the defendant sane at that time. Therefore, the suggestion that the defendant lacked sufficient mental capacity to make an admission to Ash, when he talked to him, is not supported by the record. As we indicated at the beginning of this opinion, we fail to find reversible error in connection with any of the assignments urged on appeal. The conviction, judgment and sentence of the trial court must therefore be affirmed. Affirmed.