Opinion ID: 1726512
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: did the trial court err in allowing testimony concerning appellant's confession?

Text: Appellant gave a six-page confession to the shooting, but contends that testimony concerning his confession should not have been heard by the jury because he requested an attorney, but was not afforded one. [1] The record reflects that shortly after 10 p.m. on September 10 at the DeSoto County Jail appellant was advised of his rights for the third time [2] by investigator Stewart in the presence of Deputy Richardson and signed a waiver of those rights. At the pretrial suppression hearing appellant readily admitted that he understood his rights, including the right to counsel. Each officer who testified at the suppression hearing specifically denied that appellant had requested an attorney. The transcript of appellant's taped confession which was introduced into evidence at the suppression hearing reflects that appellant was readvised of his rights and stated that he understood them. It further shows that appellant made no mention of desiring an attorney and he acknowledged that he had not been promised anything, nor had any threats, pressure or coercion been used against him to require him to make the statement. This Court recognizes that when a suspect requests counsel, his request must be complied with prior to interrogation unless he initiates further communication. Davis v. State, 406 So.2d 795, 799 (Miss. 1981). We likewise recognize that when there is conflicting evidence on the admissibility of a confession, we will not disturb the trial court's findings unless it appears clearly contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Harrigill v. State, 381 So.2d 619, 623 (Miss. 1980); Curry v. State, 328 So.2d 328 (Miss. 1976). It should be noted that the trial court granted the appellant the following instruction D-3: You are the sole judges of the facts in this case. You may consider the alleged confession in light of the manner in which it was obtained and give it such weight and credibility as you think it is entitled. Unless you believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged confession was made by the Defendant both truthfully and of his own free will, and was not the result of any hope of regard or leniency, then you must disregard the alleged confession to the extent that these facts tend to discredit it. Based upon the foregoing we find that there was an intelligent waiver of the right to counsel and no merit to appellant's assignment of error.