Edwards v. Com., 73--74
| Citation | 500 S.W.2d 783 |
| Decision Date | 26 October 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 73--74,73--74 |
| Parties | Lindon EDWARDS, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky) |
A. P. Gullett, III, Cooper & Gullett, Hazard, for appellant.
Ed W. Hancock, Atty. Gen., Thomas A. Ainley, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, for appellee.
The appellant, Lindon Edwards, was convicted of possession and sale of a dangerous drug. Punishment was fixed at three years' confinement in the penitentiary. His sole claim of error on this appeal is that the trial court improperly admitted into evidence a statement, which a police officer asserted was volunteered. It is Edwards' contention that the statement was inadmissible under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).
Edwards was indicted in July 1972. An arrest warrant was issued and sent to the police in Dayton, Ohio, where he was then living and working. He was arrested in Dayton on Friday afternoon, August 11, 1972. On Sunday, August 13, 1972, officer Reynolds and officer Mullins of the Hazard Police Department picked Edwards up at the Dayton, Ohio, jail. Officer Reynolds testified that he had known Edwards all of his life. Reynolds testified that he gave no Miranda warnings to Edwards. He said Edwards made no statement when the officers picked him up or as he was leaving the jail. Edwards was seated alone in the back seat of the police car and the officers rode in the front seat. Officer Mullins was the driver.
According to Reynolds' testimony, he asked Edwards how he was getting along and if he was glad to get out of jail. At some time in the conversation, either before or after the statement to which Edwards directs his objection, Reynolds asked Edwards if he still had his motorcycle and if he belonged to the motorcycle gang in Dayton. Reynolds said that after about five minutes of the trip had elapsed Edwards spontaneously stated, Reynolds stated that he did not attempt to interrogate Edwards or ask him any questions; that he did not lead Edwards to believe that he was required to make any statement; that the statement by Edwards was voluntarily made and was completely unsolicited, and that the only way he could have prevented the statement would have been to cover his ears.
Edwards argues that the decision in Miranda v. Arizona completely prohibits the introduction of this inculpatory statement. The Miranda opinion made clear, however, that it prohibition did not extend to any statement given freely and voluntarily without any compelling influences. It specifically stated that volunteered statements of any kind were not barred by the Fifth Amendment and that their admissibility was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harrison v. Com.
...but absent any circumstances not disclosed in the record, the decision of the trial court should not be disturbed. Edwards v. Commonwealth, Ky., 500 S.W.2d 783 (1973). When the trial court admitted Stepp's statement, it was in effect a ruling that the confession was voluntary. Considering t......
-
Crawford v. Com., 91-SC-298-MR
...its determination, including its evaluation of credibility, if supported by substantial evidence, is conclusive. Edwards v. Commonwealth, Ky., 500 S.W.2d 783 (1973); Harper, supra; RCr Prior to signing the waiver form, appellant was confronted with the substance of the testimony and physica......
-
Wernigk v. Commonwealth, 2001-CA-002519-MR.
...conclusive. Id. (citing Crawford v. Commonwealth, Ky., 824 S.W.2d 847, 849; Harper v. Commonwealth, Ky., 694 S.W.2d 665; Edwards v. Commonwealth, Ky., 500 S.W.2d 783; and RCr At the suppression hearing, Detective Harris testified that he interviewed Wernigk on January 31, 2001. Prior to dis......
-
Henson v. Com.
...Crawford v. Commonwealth, Ky., 824 S.W.2d 847, 849 (1992); Harper v. Commonwealth, Ky., 694 S.W.2d 665 (1985); Edwards v. Commonwealth, Ky., 500 S.W.2d 783 (1973); RCr Here, Appellant, claims his confession was coerced, and therefore involuntary, because he felt threatened by a true stateme......