Harrell v. State, No. 50440

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
Writing for the CourtBOWLING; PATTERSON; BROOM
Citation357 So.2d 643
PartiesJimmy Wayne HARRELL v. STATE of Mississippi.
Decision Date12 April 1978
Docket NumberNo. 50440

Page 643

357 So.2d 643
Jimmy Wayne HARRELL
v.
STATE of Mississippi.
No. 50440.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
April 12, 1978.

Richard D. Foxworth, Columbia, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Calvin Coolidge Williams, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Before SMITH, LEE and BOWLING, JJ.

BOWLING, Justice, for the court.

Appellant was tried and convicted in the Circuit Court of Marion County. He was charged with violating the provisions of Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-5-23 (1972), which provides as follows:

Any male person above the age of eighteen years, who, for the purpose of gratifying his lust, or indulging his depraved licentious sexual desires, shall handle, touch, or rub with hands or any part of his body or any member thereof, any child under the age of fourteen years, with or without his consent, shall be guilty of a high crime and upon conviction thereof, shall be fined in any sum not less than ten dollars ($10.00) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), or

Page 644

be imprisoned in the state penitentiary not less than one year nor more than ten (10) years, or be punished by both such fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the court.

Appellant presents two assignments of error, towit:

1. The court erred in permitting the State of Mississippi to introduce the alleged confession and other statements of the appellant over the objection of the appellant, because the said statements were made prior to the appellant being given a constitutional warning as required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and after he was placed in fear of his life.

2. The State of Mississippi failed to prove any violation of Section 97-5-23 of the Mississippi Code of 1972 as amended.

As stated above, appellant contends that his Miranda warnings and instructions were not sufficient to satisfy the Sixth Amendment requirements as set out in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963), and Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 95 S.Ct. 854, 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975).

First we need to examine and analyze the warnings, statement of rights, and waivers executed by appellant prior to giving the statement complained of by him here. The record shows that appellant was arrested after midnight on the morning of January 7, 1977. At the non-jury hearing to determine the admissibility of appellant's statement, Bobby Reed, Sheriff of Marion County and the arresting officer, testified that immediately upon arresting appellant he read him the following Miranda rights, towit:

You do not have to say anything. You have an absolute right to remain silent. Anything you might say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to talk to an attorney before talking to police, and you may have the attorney present while being questioned. You will be provided with an attorney if you want one and if you cannot afford one the attorney will be provided without charge to you. If you do not desire to answer any questions or if you desire to discontinue the interview at any time you will not be compelled to continue.

Appellant was taken to the Marion County jail and according to the testimony of the officers, and not materially disputed by appellant, the latter was presented an already completed form obviously used by the sheriff's office and written in typed capital letters. Appellant read and signed this form as follows:

After executing the foregoing rights and waiver form, appellant wrote a statement in his own handwriting and signed it. This was on another previously prepared form headed "Statement." Part of the statement was typed into the form...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • Duckworth v. Eagan, No. 88-317
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 26 d1 Junho d1 1989
    ...700 (1973); United States v. Lacy, 446 F.2d 511, 513 (CA5 1971); State v. Sterling, 377 So.2d 58, 62-63 (La.1979); Harrell v. State, 357 So.2d 643, 645-646 (Miss.1978); Rowbotham v. State, 542 P.2d 610, 618-619 (Okla.Crim.App.1975); Grennier v. State, 70 Wis.2d 204, 213-215, 234 N.W.2d 316,......
  • State v. Cassell, No. 4342
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alaska (US)
    • 13 d4 Setembro d4 1979
    ...decision clearly indicated that the warning in that case would have been insufficient. 512 P.2d at 915 n.12. But see Harrell v. State, 357 So.2d 643, 645 (Miss.1978) (recognizing that there exists a split of authority between some of the federal circuit courts, as well as several of the sta......
  • Yates v. State, No. 54415
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 12 d3 Dezembro d3 1984
    ...368 So.2d 842 (Miss.1979); Jordan v. State, 365 So.2d 1198 (Miss.1979); Abston v. State, 361 So.2d 1384 (Miss.1978); Harrell v. State, 357 So.2d 643 (Miss.1978); Dotson v. State, 312 So.2d 444 (Miss.1975). The case sub judice, however, will be decided on another factual point. After several......
  • Cribbs v. State, No. LL-355
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 4 d5 Janeiro d5 1980
    ...v. United States, 409 F.2d 299 (8th Cir. 1969), Cert. denied, 396 U.S. 859, 90 S.Ct. 127, 24 L.Ed.2d 110 (1969); Harrell v. State, 357 So.2d 643 (Miss.1978); State v. Maluia, 539 P.2d 1200 (Hawaii 1975); State v. Beach, 320 So.2d 142 (La.1975); Rowbotham v. State, 542 P.2d 610 (Okl.Crim.197......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • Duckworth v. Eagan, No. 88-317
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 26 d1 Junho d1 1989
    ...700 (1973); United States v. Lacy, 446 F.2d 511, 513 (CA5 1971); State v. Sterling, 377 So.2d 58, 62-63 (La.1979); Harrell v. State, 357 So.2d 643, 645-646 (Miss.1978); Rowbotham v. State, 542 P.2d 610, 618-619 (Okla.Crim.App.1975); Grennier v. State, 70 Wis.2d 204, 213-215, 234 N.W.2d 316,......
  • State v. Cassell, No. 4342
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alaska (US)
    • 13 d4 Setembro d4 1979
    ...decision clearly indicated that the warning in that case would have been insufficient. 512 P.2d at 915 n.12. But see Harrell v. State, 357 So.2d 643, 645 (Miss.1978) (recognizing that there exists a split of authority between some of the federal circuit courts, as well as several of the sta......
  • Yates v. State, No. 54415
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 12 d3 Dezembro d3 1984
    ...368 So.2d 842 (Miss.1979); Jordan v. State, 365 So.2d 1198 (Miss.1979); Abston v. State, 361 So.2d 1384 (Miss.1978); Harrell v. State, 357 So.2d 643 (Miss.1978); Dotson v. State, 312 So.2d 444 (Miss.1975). The case sub judice, however, will be decided on another factual point. After several......
  • Cribbs v. State, No. LL-355
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 4 d5 Janeiro d5 1980
    ...v. United States, 409 F.2d 299 (8th Cir. 1969), Cert. denied, 396 U.S. 859, 90 S.Ct. 127, 24 L.Ed.2d 110 (1969); Harrell v. State, 357 So.2d 643 (Miss.1978); State v. Maluia, 539 P.2d 1200 (Hawaii 1975); State v. Beach, 320 So.2d 142 (La.1975); Rowbotham v. State, 542 P.2d 610 (Okl.Crim.197......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT