Anderson v. State, 46024
| Decision Date | 07 December 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 46024,46024 |
| Citation | 241 So.2d 677 |
| Parties | Jimmie Davis ANDERSON v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
James B. Tucker, Jackson, for appellant.
A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Guy N. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., and John M. Kinard, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
Jimmie Davis Anderson was convicted of the crime of attempted armed robbery in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County and sentenced to serve a term of ten years in the penitentiary. He appeals from that conviction and sentence.
There can be no question that the evidence for the prosecution, as opposed that offered by appellant, was ample to make a factual issued for the jury as to appellant's guilt or innocence. Of the several assignments of error, however, one is well taken.
The prosecution offered in evidence a written confession signed by appellant. On objection, the court properly conducted a preliminary hearing out of the presence of the jury as to its admissibility.
Upon this hearing, appellant, as well as the officers who took the confession, testified as to their respective versions of the circumstances under which it had been obtained. According to testimony given by the officers, the confession had been free and voluntary and given by appellant after he had been duly warned in accordance with what has become known as the Miranda rule. To the contrary, appellant denied this and testified that he did not confess, that the written statement purporting to be his confession was untrue in fact, and that he had signed it only upon demand of an officer and because he was in fear of physical violence at the hands of the officer if he declined to do so. In other words, the conflicting evidence for the prosecution and the appellant made a factual issue as to the truth as well as to the voluntariness of the alleged confession.
On this evidence, the court ruled that the confession was admissible.
The jury was returned, the confession was introduced, the officers again testifying as to the facts under which they said it had been obtained. When the defendant took the stand as a witness in his own behalf he was asked by his attorney to give his version of such circumstances. However, the court declined to permit him to do so, stating that the court already had ruled upon the admissibility and the circumstances.
This was error. While it was the province of the court to rule upon the admissibility of the confession, appellant was entitled to have the jury pass upon the factual issues made by the evidence with respect to its truth and voluntariness. The weight and credibility of the witnesses as to these matters were for the jury.
The defendant is not bound by his extrajudicial confession introduced by the prosecution. He may introduce evidence to show that the confession is not true and he may explain why he made...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lee v. State
...offer all witnesses who were present at the questioning and the confession or give an adequate reason for their absence. Anderson v. State, 241 So.2d 677 (Miss.1970), holds that, while it is initially for the trial court to rule upon the voluntariness of the confession, the appellant is ent......
-
Allen v. State
..., 476 U.S. 683, 687–91, 106 S.Ct. 2142, 90 L.Ed.2d 636 (1986) ; Rhone v. State , 254 So.2d 750, 754 (Miss. 1971) ; Anderson v. State , 241 So.2d 677, 678 (Miss. 1970).¶ 15. But we cannot find the error here to be harmless, as Allen's confessions were critical to the prosecution. And althoug......
-
Wilson v. State, 54827
...of a confession is for the determination of a trial judge. Brook v. State, 178 Miss. 575, 582, 173 So. 409, 411 (1937), Anderson v. State, 241 So.2d 677 (Miss.1970). The admissibility of the confession, however, is to be distinguished from the issue of its credibility and its weight. The di......
-
Cork v. State
...the light of the evidence by which it was obtained and give it such weight and credibility as they think it entitled." Anderson v. State, 241 So.2d 677, 678 (Miss.1970) (citing Brooks v. State, 178 Miss. 575, 582, 173 So. 409, 411 (1937)). Cork contends that, because his proffered instructi......