Medders v. State
| Citation | 342 So.2d 49 |
| Decision Date | 01 February 1977 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 251 |
| Parties | Phillip Ray MEDDERS v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Jesse W. Shotts, Birmingham, for appellant.
William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and Joseph G. L. Marston, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The appellant was indicted, tried and convicted for the drowning death of Hopson Backin on October 11, 1975. The evidence, which included a confession by the appellant, was sufficient to support a guilty verdict. Morton v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 338 So.2d 423, cert. denied Ala., 338 So.2d 428 (1976). The appellant contends the trial court erred to reversal by admitting into evidence the appellant's confession and two photographs of the body of the deceased. We do not agree.
The appellant was detained for questioning concerning the deceased's death on October 24, 1975, and he was subsequently released. Approximately ten hours later on October 25, 1975, the appellant was arrested at which time he confessed to the crime.
On both occasions, the record reveals the appellant was advised of the appropriate Miranda rights which he knowingly and voluntarily waived. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966); Flannagin v. State, 289 Ala. 177, 266 So.2d 643 (1972). The appellant argues that his confession should have been excluded at trial for two reasons.
The appellant's confession consisted of a question and answer session between himself and Sgt. J. R. Horton, the interrogating officer. It is the appellant's contention that the interrogation continued after the appellant requested that no more questions be asked in violation of Miranda, supra. United States v. Crisp, 435 F.2d 354 (7th Cir. 1970). The transcript of the appellant's confession consisted of fourteen typewritten pages. There appear in the transcript only three instances which might possibly indicate a desire to break off the interrogation.
The first instance occurred as follows:
The second instance occurred as follows:
'Q. Phillip, getting back to what we were were talking about Saturday.
The final instance occurred as follows:
'A. Naw, I want to make a statement and all while I'm here.'
Throughout the interrogation, the appellant expressed a desire to confess to the crime. The appellant apparently did not believe that some of Sgt. Horton's questions were relevant as indicated by the first two instances quoted above. However, given the context of the appellant's continued desire to confess in order to obtain punishment, as indicated by the third instance quoted above, we are of the opinion that the first two instances quoted above do not indicate a desire on the appellant's part to break off the interrogation. We find, rather, a desire on the part of the appellant that only questions which he thought relevant to the murder be asked. Such a desire does not render the confession inadmissible. Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 89 S.Ct. 1420, 22 L.Ed.2d 684 (1969).
The appellant also contends that he could not voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waive his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination due to an alleged high level of intoxication. The appellant did introduce some Slight evidence of a high degree of intoxication. However, Sgt. Horton testified that in his opinion the appellant, although he had been drinking, was not drunk.
We have dealt, at length, with similar problems in other cases. See: Scott v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 333 So.2d 619 (1976). Suffice it to state that intoxication, short of mania or such an impairment of the will and mind as to make the person unconscious
of the meaning of his words, will not render a statement or confession inadmissible. Woods v. State, 54 Ala.App. 591, 310 So.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Atchley v. State
...Ala., 386 So.2d 1187 (1980); Bufford v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 382 So.2d 1162, cert. denied, Ala., 382 So.2d 1175 (1980); Medders v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 342 So.2d 49 (1977). While we do not find that this particular issue was raised before the trial judge, it is evident from the undisputed tes......
-
Mitchell v. State, 5 Div. 503
...375 So.2d 558 (1979); Rogers v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 365 So.2d 322, cert. denied, Ala., 365 So.2d 334 (1978); Medders v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 342 So.2d 49 (1977); Scott v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 333 So.2d 619 (1976). Although we do not see how appellant can complain under these circumstances of ......
-
Bufford v. State, 2 Div. 231
...confession inadmissible. Balentine v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 339 So.2d 1063, cert. denied, Ala., 339 So.2d 1070 (1976); Medders v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 342 So.2d 49 (1977); Scott v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 333 So.2d 619 At trial the appellant challenged three statements on the intoxication issue. O......
-
Jones v. State
...to paralyze the mental faculties and render the appellant incapable of forming or entertaining the design to take life. Medders v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 342 So.2d 49 (1977); Sowells v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 339 So.2d 1090 (1976); Scott v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 333 So.2d 619 (1976); Gautney v. Sta......