Agee v. State
| Decision Date | 25 April 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 43903,43903 |
| Citation | 185 So.2d 671 |
| Parties | Joe AGEE v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
O. M. Oates, Jr., Bay Springs, for appellant.
Joe T. Patterson, Atty. Gen., by Hugo Newcomb, Sr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
Joe Agee was convicted of murdering Hurbert Darby. The jury fixed punishment at lefe imprisonment, and Agee appealed to this Court.
Hurbert Darby lived alone in the rural part of Jasper County, Mississippi, where he was employed to care for a cattle farm. On December 29, 1964, he was found dead in his residence from gunshot wounds in the chest. He had been shot through a window. There was no evidence of robbery, and at the time his body was discovered, he had been dead several days.
The main question in this case involves the admission in evidence of a written confession. We hold that the State failed to establish that the confession was voluntarily given and that the case should be reversed for a new trial.
Defendant and another youth were arrested at about 1:30 p.m. on December 29, 1964, after the body of the deceased had been found at about 8:30 that morning. He was placed in the county jail and removed to the courthouse from time to time during that day and the next for questioning, and signed a written confession during the evening of December 30, 1964.
Defendant argues four assignments of error; one is that the directed verdict should have been given and appellant discharged. We do not think that this assignment of error requires discussion. His other three assignments of error involve the introduction in evidence of a confession over defendant's objection.
The State has the burden of proving the voluntariness of a confession. This burden is met by the testimony of an officer, or other person having knowledge of the facts, that the confession was voluntarily made without any threats, coercion, or offer of reward. This makes out a prima facie case for the State on the question of voluntariness. Lee v. State, 236 Miss. 716, 112 So.2d 254 (1959). When objection is made to the introduction of the confession, the accused is entitled to a preliminary hearing on the question of the admissibility of the confession. This hearing is conducted in the absence of the jury. Lee v. State, supra, is also authority for the proposition that when, after the State has made out a prima facie case as to the voluntariness of the confession, the accused offers testimony that violence, threats of violence, or offers of reward induced the confession, then the State must offer all the officers who were present when the accused was questioned and when the confession was signed, or give an adequate reason for the absence of any such witness. See also Holmes v. State, 211 Miss. 436, 51 So.2d 755 (1951).
In the present case the trial court committed several errors regarding the admission in evidence of the defendant's confession. On the preliminary hearing to determine the voluntariness of the confession, the State offered the testimony of Deputy Sheriff Tally and Highway Patrol Investigator Armstead, who testified in general terms that the confession was voluntary. This testimony was sufficient to make out a prima facie case that the confession was voluntary, and to that point, the State met the burden of proof. The defendant then took the stand in the absence of the jury on the preliminary hearing and testified that he was subjected to threats and violence and that the confession was not voluntary. The State did not thereafter proceed as required by the rule hereinabove stated. The jury returned to the courtroom, and Highway Patrol Investigator Armstead was recalled, and after he testified in the presence of the jury that the confession was voluntary, it was admitted in evidence. Thereafter in the presence of the jury, the State offered the testimony of Highway Patrol Investigator Richardson, Highway Patrolman Wilson and Professor J. H. Harvey to rebut defendant's testimony. The testimony...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shell v. State, 03-DP-0087
...which would support a warrantless arrest in the following manner: were made and also found that no coercion had been used. Agee v. State, 185 So.2d 671 (Miss.1966). The trial court also addressed the issue of right to counsel, which was raised in the motion but not argued. The trial court f......
-
Wells v. State, 95-DP-01068-SCT
...evidence prior to ruling on its admissibility in a suppression hearing. Wells cites the rule set forth by this Court in Agee v. State, 185 So.2d 671, 673 (Miss.1966) that "[w]hen objection is made to the introduction of the confession, the accused is entitled to a preliminary hearing on the......
-
Thorson v. State, 90-DP-00015
...signed, or give an adequate reason for the absence of any such witness. See also Holmes v. State, 211 Miss. 436, 51 So.2d 755 (1951). Agee, 185 So.2d at 673. This Court's decision in Agee was rendered in April, 1966, two months prior to the United States Supreme Court's seminal Miranda v. A......
-
Woodward v. State, DP-81
...services of a lawyer. Moulds further testified to the free and voluntary nature of the statement itself. The requisites of Agee v. State, 185 So.2d 671 (Miss.1966), were complied with, and there is no claim to the contrary as to any of the Moulds stated that he wrote Woodward's statement ou......