Lee v. State
| Decision Date | 14 April 1947 |
| Docket Number | 36278. |
| Citation | 201 Miss. 423,30 So.2d 74 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | LEE v. STATE. |
Writ of Certiorari Granted June 16, 1947.
See 67 S.Ct. 1735.
Will S. Wells and Jackson & Young, all of Jackson, for appellant.
Greek L. Rice, Atty. Gen., and R. O. Arrington Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
On Suggestion of Error.
We are urged to reconsider the question of whether or not the confession of the accused, which was testified to by the officers, was made freely and voluntarily. The proof on behalf of the State on that issue is that a statement was made by the accused in the presence of officers McLeod and Rogers, which was reduced to writing, but which he refused to sign, stating that 'two men had treated him kind of bad during the forenoon' of that day; that thereupon officer Rogers stated that he 'would not take a statement under those conditions from anybody,' and the accused was then returned to his cell. The written confession, not having been signed, the details of the same were testified to by the officers at the trial.
The accused testified that these two men who had interviewed him during the forenoon were plain clothes men, and that they struck him at least twice when he refused to admit that he had committed the crime charged against him. He further testified that after they had thus treated him, they said 'If you go downstairs and say you did not do it, it will be mighty bad for you.'
There was not testimony to the effect that he was mistreated by officers McLeod and Rogers on the occasion when they took his statement down in writing. The trial judge was zealous in his effort to try to ascertain the truth as to whether or not this confession was made freely and voluntarily, and he caused the jailer to be called as a witness, whom the accused said was present at the time he was mistreated, and the jailer testified in substance that while he had no distinct recollection of the occasion, or whether he was even present at the time the interview was had, he was positive that no one had struck the accused on the occasion complained of or at any other time in his presence, although he admitted that sometimes prisoners were assaulted but 'not unmercifully.' However, he was not asked as to whether one of the two men who were said to have mistreated the prisoner made the statement to him that 'If you go downstairs and say you did not do it, it will be mighty bad for you.' Therefore the statement of the accused in that behalf is wholly undisputed in this record.
However the accused...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Washington
...steadfastly denied having made the confession, he could not challenge its voluntariness (Lee v. State, 201 Miss. 423, 29 So.2d 211, 30 So.2d 74). The Supreme Court of the United States reversed and held that the accused is not so estopped because the due process clause "invalidates a state ......
-
Sturdivant v. State, 1998-KA-01092-SCT.
...discretion of the trial court. Lee v. State, 201 Miss. 423, 29 So.2d 211 (1946)[(1947)], suggestion of error overruled in 201 Miss. 423, 30 So.2d 74 (1947); reversed on other grounds, 332 U.S. 742, 68 Sup. Ct. 300, 92 L.Ed. 330; mandate conformed to 203 Miss. 264, 34 So.2d 736 This rule imp......
-
Wells-Lamont Corp. v. Watkins
...omitted has been liberally allowed, even in criminal trials on formal hearing. See Lee v. State, 201 Miss. 423, 29 So.2d 211, 30 So.2d 74; Summerville v. State, 207 Miss. 54, 41 So.2d It may be said as a general rule that the right to reopen proceedings to take further evidence in workmen's......
-
Riley v. State
...cited with approval and quoted in Gant v. State, 219 Miss. 800, 70 So.2d 28. In the cases of Lee v. State, 201 Miss. 423, 29 So.2d 211, 30 So.2d 74, and Summerville v. State, 207 Miss. 54, 41 So.2d 377, the State was permitted to reopen for the purpose of proving an element of the offense i......