Opinion ID: 1741226
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Did the lower court err in admitting the appellant's confession into evidence?

Text: Under this point, appellant contends that he is a drug addict and alcoholic, and that being advised of his Miranda rights and making the confessions were not voluntary on his part; that he was sick and nauseated, and was experiencing withdrawal symptoms. The lower court held a suppression hearing and all the officers involved in obtaining the confessions, testified that the appellant understood the waiver of his Miranda rights and that the waiver was intelligent, knowing and voluntary. Also, they testified that the ensuing confessions were free and voluntary on the part of appellant and that he understood and knew what he was doing in giving the confessions. We note that appellant was originally arrested by the Jackson police officers for speeding, not for DUI, and that appellant initiated the statement about his raping a middle-aged woman in Richland two or three months before. The officers had no knowledge of that crime until related to them by the appellant. A police officer, who took appellant to the precinct station, testified that appellant was not intoxicated and that he was in control of himself; the jailer testified that he never noticed appellant experiencing severe withdrawal symptoms. Lt. Nancy Jordan, an RN with the Jackson Police Department, is assigned to the jail as a nurse. She saw appellant at 9 a.m. on August 1, 1983. He was having stomach cramps and chills as a result of withdrawal pains, but she did not recall him asking to see a doctor, and, if he had done so, she would have sent him to one. She observed that appellant appeared to know what was going on and to understand questions and make appropriate responses. She accepted what he told her and did not recall that he looked unusually nervous or agitated. The lower court held that there was a voluntary and knowing waiver of Miranda rights and that the confessions were free and voluntary. We are of the opinion that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in so holding and in admitting the confessions. Johnson v. State, 475 So.2d 1136, 1145 (Miss. 1985); Gavin v. State, 473 So.2d 952, 954-55 (Miss. 1985); Wiley v. State, 465 So.2d 318, 320 (Miss. 1985); Hemmingway v. State, 483 So.2d 1335, 1336 (Miss. 1986); Kemp v. State, 352 So.2d 446, 448 (Miss. 1977).