Court Opinion

ID: 9674392
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:28:10.287216+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:27.395602
License: Public Domain

LAWSON and GOODWYN, Justices
(concurring specially).
We have recently undertaken to express our views as to the holdings of the United States Supreme Court in Mapp v. State of Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081, 84 A.L.R.2d 933; Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908, 1 A.L.R.3d 1205; and Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977. See Duncan v. State, 278 Ala. 145, 176 So.2d 840.
We feel inclined to comment briefly as to the effect of those cases on the case at bar.
This record discloses neither a Fourth Amendment (Mapp v. State of Ohio, supra) problem nor any conceivable violation of the principles of voir dire examination laid down in Jackson v. Denno, supra, as we interpreted that opinion in Duncan v. State, supra.
However, we do feel that the state of this record requires some comment on the application of the Escobedo case.
The State introduced several inculpatory statements, as well as two formal confessions, made by the appellant.
*425While initial police procedures were still in progress at the scene of the crime, accused asked many questions relative to the crime. During this same conversation he made the statement, “I did it. Here I am. Lock me up or take me later.” While in police custody he made a formal confession admitting his guilt. The record shows that before the statement was taken a deputy sheriff advised him “ * * * of his rights and that he did not have to give a statement, that if he made a statement that it could be used in a court of law.” For aught that appears, the appellant never asked for counsel. On the following day, September 25, 1962, the appellant gave another confession. This written confession recites in question and answer form that accused was advised of his rights and did not have to make a statement and that if he made a statement it could be used in a court of law. Other than this documentary recital there is no testimony as to warnings by the interrogating officials. For aught that appears appellant did not ask for counsel.
As to the two inculpatory statements, it is quite obvious from the record that the investigation was still a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and had not begun to focus on a particular suspect. The accusatory stage had not been reached and, therefore, Escobedo, supra, has no application in our opinion. Duncan v. State, supra.
As to the first confession, the record shows that appellant was warned and also that he did not request counsel. Under our interpretation of the Escobedo case in our Duncan case, supra, these facts distinguish the present case from the holding in Escobedo.
As to the second confession, it is our opinion that the warning given as to the first confession was sufficient to cover the second one.
Of course, in view of the recent federal court decisions and the willingness of those courts to override decisions of state trial and appellate courts, no state court can be certain that any trial has been conducted in such a manner as to meet with approval-óf the federal courts either on direct review or by the use of the federal writ of habeas corpus. However, it is our studied judgment that the appellant in this case was not denied any right guaranteed to him by the federal or state constitutions and that his trial was in all respects conducted in accordance with the laws of this state.