Mitchell v. State, 3 Div. 482
| Decision Date | 19 October 1976 |
| Docket Number | 3 Div. 482 |
| Citation | 338 So.2d 524 |
| Parties | Billy MITCHELL v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Gray, Seay & Langford and Donald V. Watkins, Montgomery, for appellant.
William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and Carol Jean Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Second degree murder; sentence: life imprisonment.
As the result of a scuffle over the possession of a pillow, the appellant killed the deceased, Reave Jones, by stabbing him several times with a knife. It appears that the deceased was unarmed. The scuffle and subsequent knifing took place on March 24, 1975, at the Elks Memorial Home in Montgomery, Alabama. The appellant was indicted for first degree murder, and he pled not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. The appellant was required to stand trial after he was found to be sane and competent to stand trial by the appropriate officials at Bryce State Mental Hospital. The trial court dismissed the first degree murder charge at the end of the State's case. There was overwhelming evidence presented from which the jury could find the appellant guilty of second degree murder which it did.
The appellant, at what appears to be his first opportunity, confessed to the murder. The confession was made after the appropriate Miranda warnings were given and waived. It appears from the record that the confession was completely voluntary. The appellant contends he lacked the mental capacity to voluntarily confess.
The record established that appellant suffers from a mental disorder called non-paychotic organic brain syndrome with epilepsy. On occasion he allegedly hears voices. He also has an I.Q. of approximately 65. The appellant periodically suffered from severe depression and in addition he was addicted to beer. The record is void of any testimony that the appellant was incapable of waiving his Miranda rights and voluntarily confessing. There was no evidence indicating the appellant was depressed or under the influence of alcohol when he confessed. Quite to the contrary, the police officer who took the confession testified that the appellant acted like a normal rational person. The appellant could read and write, and he had gone to school through the sixth grade.
In order to hold that the appellant was incapable of voluntarily confessing, we would have to take judicial notice of a fact not in evidence, i.e. that a person with an I.Q. of 65 does not have the mental capacity to voluntarily confess. This we cannot do. The Appellant's expert witness testified that the appellant knew right from wrong and that an I.Q. of 65 indicated moderate mental retardation. There was no evidence as to what effect an I.Q. of 65 has on one's capacity to make a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary confession.
The principal case on which the appellant relies is Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U.S. 199, 80 S.Ct. 274, 4 L.Ed.2d 242 (1960). The facts in that case are clearly inapposite to those in the present case. Here the record does not show strong probability that the appellant was insane and incompetent at the time he confessed. Although appell...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boykin v. State
...881, cert. denied, Ala., 383 So.2d 884 (1980); and cases cited therein; 6B Alabama Digest Criminal Law 1045. See also Mitchell v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 338 So.2d 524 (1976). B Mr. Jerry Fewell, manager of the Belleview Plaza Food World, stated that he identified the packages of meat found bes......
-
Jones v. State
...given since the appellant had demonstrated an intelligence quotient within the range of "mild mental retardation." In Mitchell v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 338 So.2d 524 (1976), this Court, per Judge Bookout, addressed a similar "In order to hold that the appellant was incapable of voluntarily co......
-
Holmes v. State
...in which the incriminating statement was made, we hold that the trial court's ruling was not palpably erroneous. Mitchell v. State (1976), Ala.Cr.App., 338 So.2d 524. We hasten to note that this is an extremely close question and that in future cases with slight factual distinctions, simila......
-
McGee v. State
...to matters on which rulings are invoked at the trial court. Frazier v. State, 53 Ala.App. 492, 301 So.2d 256 (1974); Mitchell v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 338 So.2d 524 (1976). In addition to there being no specific ground set out for suppression, no objection on introduction, and no ruling by th......