Jewell v. Com.
| Decision Date | 15 December 1967 |
| Parties | Donnie JEWELL, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Robert T. Schneider, Horse Cave, for appellant.
Robert Matthews, Atty. Gen., George F. Rabe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, for appellee.
On September 13, 1965, appellant was in jail in Horse Cave, Kentucky, awaiting trial on a charge of child desertion. William S. Smith, a detective with the Kentucky State Police, was looking for him in connection with an investigation on an offense of store-house breaking. Smith, in company with another officer, went to the jail in Horse Cave where appellant was released to them for interrogation. They took him into their automobile in front of the jail where they talked for approximately ten minutes concerning the charge being investigated by the officer. Officer Smith testified that they 'just asked him what he knew and he indicated he knew something.' Following this conversation he was taken to the jail at Cave City, Kentucky, some five miles away. There he readily confessed to the charge, which confession was reduced to writing and signed by him. Before questioning commenced, appellant was given a warning concerning his rights, which is set out in full at the beginning of the written statement.
'September 13, 1965. I Donny Alton Jewell make the following free and voluntary statement to Detective William C. Smith and Trooper Cecil Overstreet, both known to me to be members of the Kentucky State Police. 'I have been advised I don't have to make any statement and any I do make can be used against me in a court of law. I have been advised I am entitled to an attorney before making this statement. No promises have been made to me, no threats or promise of reward. I am 29 years of age and can read and write. * * *"
At the outset of the trial here in question, appellant objected to the introduction of the confession in evidence and asked for a hearing. The trial court heard evidence concerning the confession, at the conclusion of which it made the following ruling:
The confession was later introduced in evidence. Appellant was convicted of storehouse breaking under KRS 433.190 and sentenced to imprisonment for two years. His sole claim of error is that the confession should not have been used in evidence against him because it was obtained in violation of the rules announced by the Supreme Court in Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694. The substance of what the court had to say in that case...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Meyer v. Com.
...the polygraph read the miranda 'procedural safeguards' to him before his confession. His confession was admissible. See Jewell v. Commonwealth, Ky., 424 S.W.2d 394 (1968); Hamilton v. Commonwealth, Ky., 401 S.W.2d 80 (1966) cert. denied 385 U.S. 1014, 87 S.Ct. 728, 17 L.Ed.2d 551; and Chanc......
-
Roberson v. Com.
...was involuntary. The statements were therefore admissible. Hamilton v. Commonwealth, Ky., 401 S.W.2d 80 (1966); Jewell v. Commonwealth, Ky., 424 S.W.2d 394 (1968); Allee v. Commonwealth, Ky., 454 S.W.2d 336 (1970) and Shadoan v. Commonwealth, Ky., 484 S.W.2d 842 The judgment is affirmed. PA......
-
Combs v. Com.
...and intelligently. Miranda v. Arizona, supra; also see Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977; Jewell v. Commonwealth, Ky., 424 S.W.2d 394 and Hamilton v. Commonwealth, Ky., 401 S.W.2d Appellant, who was being sought in connection with the murder of Dora Haden, oc......
-
Cody v. Com.
...received the proper warnings of his rights, and the statements made by him were not the result of custodial interrogation. Jewell v. Commonwealth, Ky., 424 S.W.2d 394; Combs v. Commonwealth, Ky., 438 S.W.2d 82; Chancellor v. Commonwealth, Ky., 438 S.W.2d 783. We concur with the findings of ......