Fant v. Peyton
| Decision Date | 11 August 1969 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 69-C-24-D. |
| Citation | 303 F. Supp. 457 |
| Parties | Hurstell FANT, Petitioner, v. C. C. PEYTON, Superintendent, Virginia State Penitentiary, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia |
W. Luke Witt, Asst. Atty. Gen., Richmond, Va., for respondent.
This proceeding comes before the court on a petition for habeas corpus filed in forma pauperis by Hurstell Fant a prisoner of the State of Virginia pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241.
Petitioner Fant is presently serving a five year sentence in the Virginia State Penitentiary pursuant to his conviction on April 10, 1968, in the Circuit Court of Henry County, Virginia, for breaking and entering. The conviction resulted after a trial by judge and jury in which the petitioner, represented by court-appointed counsel, entered a plea of not guilty.
Petitioner appealed his conviction to the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals which denied his petition for writ of error on March 11, 1969. This petition for a writ of habeas corpus was filed in this court on April 29, 1969, after petitioner exhausted his state remedies in compliance with the provisions of 28 U.S. C.A. § 2254, as interpreted in Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 83 S.Ct. 822, 9 L.Ed. 2d 837 (1963). By order of this court on July 9, 1969, petitioner's transcript was filed on July 14, 1969 in said court. Full and careful consideration has been given to said transcript in the determination of petitioner's claim.
In the present petition before this court, petitioner alleges that his confession was involuntarily obtained while he was under "intoxication", and that its introduction into evidence during the trial denied petitioner his constitutional rights against self-incrimination.
The pertinent facts are as follows. Upon receiving a phone call from the owner of Roberts Body Shop, located off Route 220 near Collinsville, informing the Sheriff's Department that there had been a breaking and entering of said shop, one, Deputy Rogers, with the assistance of others, apprehended the petitioner in the vicinity of the alleged crime. As petitioner was being transported to the police station, Deputy Rogers informed Fant of his constitutional rights, because "he was starting, mumbling something about going in a place". After Fant was completely advised of his rights, "responding that he understood them", he continued to confess the manner of breaking into the repair shop and the reasons for doing so. Shortly thereafter, while at the police station, Deputy Rogers along with Officer Hill, began questioning petitioner regarding the alleged break-in, however, prior to such interrogation, again all constitutional warnings were made to Fant, especially that he could have a lawyer present during the interrogation stage and his right to remain silent. Throughout this entire period the trial record shows that the petitioner was fully knowledgeable of such rights. Both officers testified that he made no request for counsel after having been advised that he could have one during the interrogation period. Petitioner likewise was informed that he could cease answering questions during this period at any time, but the record clearly shows that he continued explaining the break-in, the manner in which it was accomplished, and the reasons for doing so. During the interrogation period, coins were found on the petitioner which he admitted were those taken from the cigarette machine, totaling some nineteen dollars.
Petitioner maintains that because he had been drinking, his oral statements to the police were made while he was unable to have full control of his faculties, thus rendering an involuntary confession. Upon being booked by the officers it was noted that Fant had been drinking, though no tests were performed to determine the extent of such drinking. However, when being questioned as to the details of the break-in, petitioner, without any difficulty, and with complete understanding, presented them to the officers. The trial court ruled that the confession had been freely and voluntarily given, thus rendering it admissible in evidence. Court appointed counsel for the petitioner timely objected to its admissibility and on appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals his writ of error was denied.
The general rule followed in Virginia enables a confession, made by an accused, to be admissible into a court of law providing that such confession was voluntarily made and not elicited by any threat or promise of benefit. Wolf v. Com., 30 Grat. (71 Va.) 833 (1878). The fact that it was made to a police officer or sheriff will not render it inadmissible. Enoch v. Com., 141 Va. 411, 126 S.E. 222 (1925).
Virginia adheres to the Wigmore or "orthodox" rule of evidence wherein the judge is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- American Home Products Corporation v. Finch, Civ. A. No. 3744.
-
United States v. Harden
...386 (D.C.E.D.Wash.1959), rev'd 282 F.2d 711 (CA 9 1960) (Demerol — reversed because no waiver of right to counsel); Fant v. Peyton, 303 F. Supp. 457 (D.C.Va.1969) (intoxication). The trial court found that appellant's statements were voluntary. The evidence supports that finding. United Sta......
-
United States v. Babb, Crim. No. 77-303.
...S. ex rel. Hayward v. Johnson, 508 F.2d 323 (3rd Cir. 1975). Lutkins v. United States, 391 F.Supp. 1328 (D.S.Dak.1975); Fant v. Peyton, 303 F.Supp. 457 (W.D.Va.1969). This court finds as a matter of fact and concludes as a matter of law that the statements given were voluntary. Of course th......
-
Yarborough v. Com.
...of a rational intellect and a free will." See United States v. Cox, 166 U.S.App.D.C. 57, 509 F.2d 390, 392 (1974); Fant v. Peyton, 303 F.Supp. 457 (W.D.Va.1969). Defendant next contends the trial court "erred as a matter of law in ignoring the theory of excusable homicide in self-defense an......