McLeod v. State, 45555
| Decision Date | 08 December 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 45555,45555 |
| Citation | 229 So.2d 557 |
| Parties | Willie McLEOD v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Eddie H. Tucker, R. Jess Brown, Jackson, for appellant.
A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Guy N. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Velia Ann Mayer, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
This appeal of Willie McLeod from a conviction of rape is a companion case to Smith v. State, 229 So.2d 551 (Miss.). These two cases are based upon the same set of circumstances and it is unnecessary to restate the facts in this opinion.
The questions raised in this case are for the most part the same as those involved in the Smith case and we only discuss in this opinion questions which have some points of difference from those in the Smith case.
Appellant contends that his confession was not free and voluntary, and he raises for the first time on appeal the contention that the confession was the result of an unlawful arrest. The confession was signed within less than an hour after he was taken to the highway patrol office in Hattiesburg. The evidence is undisputed that appellant was fully advised of his constitutional rights and that he waived the right to remain silent and to have an attorney present. There is no proof that appellant was threatened, mistreated, or that any promises or hope of reward were held out if he would confess. Upon taking the stand at the hearing on the issue of the admissibility of the confession, the appellant did not contradict the testimony of the officers that he had been duly warned of his rights and that he had not been threatened or mistreated in any way. He did state that he did not understand the papers, i.e., the waiver of his rights and the confession itself, which he signed. No evidence was presented that defendant was arrested in a dragnet operation by the police or to justify defense counsel's statement that at the time of the confession the defendant was bloody, bruised, terrified and in jail late at night. It is also argued that the fact that the defendant was only seventeen years of age should be a strong factor in determining whether the waiver and confession were free and voluntary. We agree that age is a factor to be considered in determining whether a waiver and confession are free and voluntary, but age alone is not controlling.
Defendant's counsel filed a motion regarding the sanity of defendant which suggested that he be taken to the state mental hospital for a psychiatric determination of his present sanity and ability to make a rational defense. In support of the motion defendant offered the testimony of his father who stated that defendant had previously experienced 'head trouble' causing him to fall out, sometimes beating the wall. The most recent manifestation of this trouble was stated to have occurred when the defendant had volunteered for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bell v. State
...order a mental examination, where " . . . the mental condition of a person indicted for a felony is in question . . . ." In McLeod v. State, 229 So.2d 557 (Miss.1969), where the Court construed Mississippi Code of 1942 Annotated section 2575.5 (Supp.1968), which is identical to the present ......
-
Henry v. State
...of a seventeen year old, made less than an hour after his allegedly illegal arrest, to be voluntary and admissible. McLeod v. State, 229 So.2d 557 (Miss.1969). While the youth of one arrested may make him more susceptible to the coercive effects of official misconduct, such a factor is of l......
-
State v. Dawson
...to comprehend the meaning and effect of his statement.' See also Vaughn v. State, 456 S.W.2d 879 (Tenn.Crim.App., 1970); McLeod v. State, 229 So.2d 557 (Miss., 1969); United States ex rel. Walker v. Maroney, D.C., 313 F.Supp. 237 (1970); Commonwealth v. Darden, 441 Pa. 41, 271 A.2d 257 So i......
-
Coleman v. State
...but are not controlling. Saucier v. State, 328 So.2d 355 (Miss.1976); Stewart v. State, 273 So.2d 167 (Miss.1973); McLeod v. State, 229 So.2d 557 (Miss.1969). Although the 16-year-old appellant here allegedly had only a fourth grade reading level, he testified during the hearing to suppress......