Craft v. State, 51685
| Decision Date | 27 February 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 51685,51685 |
| Citation | 380 So.2d 251 |
| Parties | Larry CRAFT, v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Robert S. Reeves, McComb, for appellant.
A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Frankie Walton White, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
Before PATTERSON, C. J., and BROOM and COFER, JJ.
Larry Craft was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to fifteen years by the Circuit Court of Pike County. Aggrieved by the verdict and sentence, he appeals.
In March of 1977 the Grand Jury of Pike County returned an indictment charging Larry Craft, Raymond Webb and James (Bilbo) Jackson with armed robbery. Webb and Jackson pleaded guilty. Craft denied his guilt and was tried with the result mentioned.
On December 21, 1976, three unidentified black males robbed the Seago Quik Mart of $352.11. Investigating the robbery, the McComb police could not find the culprits, but for some undisclosed reason they suspected Larry Craft and therefore processed his name through a nationwide crime broadcast which ultimately disclosed that Craft and Jackson were in the custody of the Chicago, Illinois Police Department.
Officers Barkdull and Oliver of the McComb Police Department obtained custody of Craft and Jackson on January 22, 1977, and returned them to McComb, Mississippi by automobile. The uncontradicted evidence shows that prior to departing Chicago both Craft and Jackson received their Miranda warnings. However, during the trip to McComb, Craft and Jackson, overheard by officers Barkdull and Oliver, argued about who had the possession of the weapon used in the armed robbery of December 21, 1976.
On January 23, the day after Craft was returned to McComb, he again received a Miranda warning and signed a waiver acknowledging this fact. Thereafter, evidently believing Craft would make a statement, Barkdull summoned the police department stenographer, Whittington. Craft then related his participation in the crime to officers Barkdull, Kennedy and stenographer Whittington. The officials then transcribed the oral statement, but Craft refused to sign it.
Subsequently, Craft was removed from the city jail in McComb to the Pike County Jail in Magnolia, Mississippi, from which he escaped. He was later apprehended in Flint, Michigan. During his detention there, Craft related to officers Caterer and Brink of the Flint Police Department the details of the robbery in McComb, Mississippi on December 21.
The trial court conducted suppression hearings concerning the admissibility of the statements made by Craft on the automobile trip from Chicago to McComb, the statement made in the McComb Police Department, as well as the statements made in Flint, Michigan. The trial court determined the statements to be admissible, and the state consequently introduced them during its case in chief. The propriety of permitting the statements into evidence forms the crux of this appeal.
Appellant contends the requirements of Agee v. State, 185 So.2d 671 (Miss.1966), require reversal. As observed, the statements were made at different times, in different places, to different officers, under different circumstances, each requiring our attention.
Appellant first notes that police officer Oliver, who accompanied Barkdull to Chicago to return the co-indictees, failed to appear on behalf of the state as a witness to the conversation between Craft and Jackson, and argues the state therefore failed to comply with Agee. We observe as did the trial court, that the police officers did not elicit exchange between the co-indictees, but rather incidentally overheard the voluntary conversations between the two. No testimony suggests that these conversations resulted from violence, threats, or coercion, subtle or otherwise, intended to produce admissions. Craft made the allegation that sometime before the conversation in the automobile Barkdull "roughed (him) up" in Chicago. Barkdull denied this. While it is true that Oliver did not testify concerning the alleged incident, it must be emphasized that no testimony in any way connected the "roughing up" to the conversation which later occurred in a different place. Indeed, the car conversation appears to have been purely voluntary, as the trial court found. The pronouncements of Agee, supra, apply only to statements alleged to have been involuntarily made either as the result of threats or coercion by police officers to elicit a confession. The conversations here fall outside the ambit of the Agee rule, in our opinion.
Craft next contends the statement given by him in the McComb jail was inadmissible under Agee because produced by force. At the suppression hearing he testified that officer East came to his cell alone and sprayed him with mace, thereby through intimidation eliciting the statement later made to other officers. Additionally, he argues his refusal to sign the transcribed statement rendered it inadmissible.
East denied Craft's charge, and the trial court resolved the issue by rejecting Craft's testimony and accepting East's denial. In view of East's denial and the fact that no other officers were present, we find no Agee problem with the statement given after the alleged mace incident.
With respect to the admissibility of the unsigned statement, the issue becomes that of the accuracy of the statement rather than its voluntariness. Although unnecessary to the decision we reach, we do observe that each of the officers present when the oral statement was made testified. None used any manner of coercion to obtain the statement, and Craft does not contend otherwise apart from his reference to the alleged mace incident. The officers present when Craft gave his oral statement testified to the accuracy of the transcript of it. Indeed, Craft virtually admits the accuracy of the transcript, arguing simply that his refusal to sign somehow deprived it of admissibility. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that Agee has no application, because it concerned voluntariness, not accuracy. In Wong Sun v. U. S., 371 U.S. 471, 490, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963), the Court stated: "The fact that the statement was unsigned, whatever bearing this may have upon its weight and credibility, does not render it inadmissible; Wong Sun understood and adopted its substance . . . ." We think this language controlling here, because...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ruffin v. State
...is contrary to human experience and is inherently incredible. See also: Norwood v. State, 258 So.2d 756 Miss. (1972); Craft v. State, 380 So.2d 251 (Miss.1980); McNeal v. State, 405 So.2d 90 There is ample evidence in the record to support Ruffin's conviction independent of the testimony of......
-
Middleton v. State
...416 (1973); People v. Perkins, 17 Ill.2d 493, 162 N.E.2d 385 (1959); State v. Dierlamm, 189 La. 544, 180 So. 135 (1938); Craft v. State, 380 So.2d 251 (Miss.1980); State v. Fox, 277 N.C. 1, 175 S.E.2d 561 (1970); 2 H. Underhill, Criminal Evidence, § 404 (5th ed. Interim Supp.1979); 3 C. Tor......
-
Peden v. State, 53563
...State, 414 So.2d 446 (Miss.1982); Smith v. State, 386 So.2d 1117 (Miss.1980); Scott v. State, 382 So.2d 1091 (Miss.1980); Craft v. State, 380 So.2d 251 (Miss.1980); Abston v. State, 361 So.2d 1384 (Miss.1978); Miles v. State, 360 So.2d 1244 (Miss.1978); Hicks v. State, 355 So.2d 679 (Miss.1......
-
King v. State, 54763
...three instructions which would have put before the jury the issue of whether King's statement was voluntarily given. Craft v. State, 380 So.2d 251 (Miss.1980), involved the refusal of a similar instruction. In that case we held, "We ... decline to put a trial court in error for refusing an ......