Espy v. State
| Decision Date | 19 December 1978 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 120 |
| Parties | Dodie ESPY, Jr. v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
J. Zach Higgs, Jr., Huntsville, for appellant.
William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen. and J. Bernard Brannan, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State, appellee.
On a trial on an indictment charging murder in the first degree, a jury found appellant guilty of murder in the second degree and fixed his punishment at imprisonment for forty-five years. He was sentenced accordingly.
The only issue presented on appeal is as to the admissibility in evidence of testimony of Officer Allmon F. Kendrick that, upon his arrival at the home of appellant and his entry into the room in which appellant was sitting and where the alleged crime took place, appellant made the statement, "I'm the one that did it." A correct summary of the record on the point is contained in appellant's brief as follows:
Officer Kendrick further testified:
Appellant insists that the admission in evidence of the quoted statement of appellant is inhibited by the principles set forth in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). We do not agree.
Miranda does not apply to spontaneous statements volunteered by one thereafter accused, even though made to an officer, before the officer has had time to advise him of his rights as set forth in Miranda.
"It appears quite clear that a spontaneous statement, blurted out by the accused and volunteered to the police prior to any questioning, is admissible against him even though he was not given his Miranda warnings." Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence, § 201.02 (1977), citing Gilpin v. United States, 415 F.2d 638 (5 Cir. 1969); Edington v. State, 243 Ark 10, 418 S.W.2d 637 (1961); Tate v. State, 219 Tenn. 698, 413 S.W.2d 366 (1967).
Archie Jones testified that he and the victim, Ralph Williams, went to the residence of defendant to purchase some alcoholic beverages. After arriving at defendant's apartment and after purchasing some alcoholic beverages, defendant told Archie Jones and Ralph Williams that they were going to have to be quiet, not to be so loud. Defendant then left the room...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jelks v. State
...denied, Ala., 397 So.2d 223; Sullivan v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 394 So.2d 76; Hammons v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 371 So.2d 986; Espy v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 365 So.2d 356. The sixth error complained of by the appellant in his brief is that the trial court erred to his prejudice by overruling appell......
-
Magwood v. State
...So.2d 156 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 435 So.2d 156 (Ala.1983); Hammons v. State, 371 So.2d 986 (Ala.Crim.App.1979); Espy v. State, 365 So.2d 356 (Ala.Crim.App.1978). "Any statement given freely and voluntarily without any compelling influences is, of course, admissible in evidence." Mir......
-
St. John v. State
...against him even though he was not given the Miranda warnings. Hammons v. State, 371 So.2d 986 (Ala.Cr.App.1979); Espy v. State, 365 So.2d 356 (Ala.Cr.App.1978). An unsolicited remark, not in response to any interrogation, does not fall within the Miranda rule. Hammons, Ervin v. State, 399 ......
-
Crawford v. State
...against him even though he was not given the Miranda warnings. Hammons v. State, 371 So.2d 986 (Ala.Cr.App.1979); Epsy v. State, 365 So.2d 356 (Ala.Cr.App.1978). An unsolicited remark, not in response to any interrogation, does not fall within the Miranda rule. Hammons, supra." Bedingfield ......