Ivey v. State, 42505
| Decision Date | 11 February 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 42505,42505 |
| Parties | Jimmie Lee IVEY v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Melvin, Melvin & Melvin, L. A. Gily, Jr., Laurel, for appellant.
Joe T. Patterson, Atty. Gen., by G. Garland Lyell, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
Jimmie Lee Ivey was jointly indicted with Arlene Ivey, his wife, for the murder of Doc Porter. A severance was granted and he was tried first. The jury found him guilty and fixed his punishment at life imprisonment in the State Penitentiary. From a judgment, in accordance with the verdict, he appealed.
The State showed that Catherine Wallace witnessed a difficulty between the Iveys and Doc Porter in her front yard. At first she and Arlene were on the porch. The men were standing in the yard under a chinaberry tree engaged in an argument. Arlene walked out to where the men were, and Jimmie, with a knife already open in his hand, handed it to her as she stood behind him, and told her to 'kill the black son of a b * * *'. She reached over her husband's shoulder and stabbed Porter. This version was corroborated by Chree Williams, who was standing on the porch, and who also said that Porter had nothing whatever in his hands and did nothing to the Iveys.
The evidence disclosed that there was a stab wound in the left shoulder between the collarbone and the heart, and that Porter died shortly after the stabbing.
The State also offered in evidence an alleged free and voluntary statement of the defendant, over his objection, in which he had said that there had been an argument between him, Arlene and Doc Porter, and that he handed Arlene the knife and told her her to 'stab the black son of a b * * *', and that the knife was his.
Two witnesses for the defendant testified that they saw Porter with a knife. Another said that he saw Porter with an open knife and that he was fixing to cut Ivey. This witness admitted, on cross-examination, that he had been convicted of burglary.
The defendant took the stand and denied that the bloody knife, which the officers found under Porter's body, was his. His attorney asked him only four questions, and the State did not cross-examine him.
The only action of the court which has been assigned as error is that the statement of the defendant, made to the officers shortly after the killing, was not free and voluntary, and, for that reason, its admission constituted reversible error.
The contention was that the officers had with them a large white German Shepherd dog named 'Snowball' which they used to force the statement. The court conducted a preliminary hearing as to the voluntariness of the confession in the absence of the jury. The defendant testified that the officer said 'If you don't tell me the truth about this thing I am going to put you in the room and turn Snowball a loose.' Several questions later, his counsel asked 'Did they use this dog to make you talk?', and he answered, 'Well, I was ready to talk, I was about drunk then and was talking then, trying to tell them like it was.' On cross-examination he was asked 'Jimmie Lee, did the dog scare you?', and he replied, 'Well, when he barked he scared me.' He was asked 'Did you make a statement to them after that time?', and he replied,
All of the officers testified that the defendant made a free and voluntary statement. They said that they apprised him that any statement, which he made, could be used against him; that he was threatened in no way; and that no inducements, promises, or hope of reward were held out to him. They testified that there were no threats to use the dog against him whatever. The evidence disclosed, in effect, that Kent Shoemake, the owner of Snowball who took the dog with him nearly all of the time, and another officer, Tony Parker, were out in the car in discharge of their duties; that they had Snowball with them when they received the call to make an investigation on Meridian Avenue, the scene of the killing; that they went to this place, found the dead body of Porter, and made an investigation; that when they went to the courthouse and the questions were being asked of the defendant, Shoemake was standing in the door and he had the dog on a leash on the outside in the hallway; that various policemen, unaware of the questioning by the officers in the room and who were prone to 'pick at' the dog, would come by, make motions as if to draw a gun or jump at the dog, and that he would bark or growl or jump at them also until his master bade him lie down; that the dog at no time barked or jumped at the defendant; that there were no threats that the dog would be used to harm the defendant; and that these acts of the dog were in no way intended to coerce or intimidate the defendant into making any incriminatory statement.
At the close of the evidence on the preliminary hearing, the trial judge overruled the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reddix v. State
...upon review, this Court will not disturb the trial court's finding unless it appears to be contrary to the evidence. Ivey v. State, 246 Miss. 117, 149 So.2d 520 (1963). (316 So.2d at The rules from the Agee decision supra, were all met in the advance inquiry into the validity of the confess......
-
Irving v. State
...disturb those findings unless they appear to be contrary to the evidence. Burrill v. State, 328 So.2d 334 (Miss.1976); Ivey v. State, 246 Miss. 117, 149 So.2d 520 (1963). The legal determination made by the trial court that appellant's confession was freely and voluntarily given is supporte......
-
Sanford v. State
...to the evidence. Clemons v. State, 316 So.2d 252 (Miss.1975); Harrison v. State, 285 So.2d 889 (Miss.1973); and Ivey v. State, 246 Miss. 117, 149 So.2d 520 (1963). Our opinion is that admitting the confession was not error because ample evidence supported the trial court's WAS THE ALIBI JUR......
-
Burrill v. State, 48882
...upon review, this Court will not disturb the trial court's finding unless it appears to be contrary to the evidence. Ivey v. State, 246 Miss. 117, 149 So.2d 520 (1963). (Clemons v. State, 316 So.2d 252, 253 Complaint that testimony as to certain statements against interest made by Burrill w......