Nevels v. State, No. 45004

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
Writing for the CourtETHRIDGE
Citation216 So.2d 529
Decision Date09 December 1968
Docket NumberNo. 45004
PartiesJerry NEVELS v. STATE of Mississippi.

Page 529

216 So.2d 529
Jerry NEVELS
v.
STATE of Mississippi.
No. 45004.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
Dec. 9, 1968.

Oscar P. LaBarre, Vicksburg, for appellant.

Joe T. Patterson, Atty. Gen., by G. Garland Lyell, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. and Laurence Y. Mellen, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

ETHRIDGE, Chief Justice:

Jerry Nevels, appellant, was convicted in the Circuit Court of Warren County of grand larceny (the theft of twenty-five rolls of barbed wire) and sentenced to serve four years in the penitentiary.

State Highway Patrolman Langford around midnight was driving north on U.S. Highway 61 above Vicksburg, when he passed going in the opposite direction a heavy loaded automobile weaving across the center line. He turned and pursued the car, which was occupied by Nevels and another man. It turned in a driveway to a church, hit a post, and the patrolman came up behind it. The two occupants jumped out of the car and ran. Langford called on his radio for assistance, and after a short time a deputy sheriff arrived with two bloodhounds. Without opening the car doors, Patrolman Langford could see rolls of barbed wire in the car and in the raised trunk. When the dogs started barking, Nevels came out of the bushes and through

Page 530

the fence, and said, 'Mr. Langford, I was going to give myself up anyway.' Langford knew defendant's last name, and asked him what his first name was. The following then occurred:

* * * I asked him, 'Jerry, is it your car? Whose car it is?' He said, 'No, sir, I stole the car.' And I said, 'What about the wire?' He said, 'I stole it.' And I said, 'Where did you get the wire from?' And he said, 'I think International Paper Company owned it.' So he went on and told me several more things.

Subsequently, Langford advised Nevels that he did not have to say anything, if he did it might be used against him, and that he was entitled to an attorney, at the State's expense if he could not afford one. He then asked Nevels whether he would show him where he got the wire, and with his agreement, they drove by the International Paper Company plant. Nevels showed Langford the remainder of the stack of barbed wire, which was on the Illinois Central right-of-way and belonged to the railroad.

Under all of the circumstances, the trial court admitted in evidence Nevels' confession as being volunteered and spontaneously given immediately after he came under the fence. The confession was properly admissible in evidence, not being in violation of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 practice notes
  • People v. Connelly, No. 84SA270
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • July 8, 1985
    ...subject to suppression under the fifth amendment. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Powell, 459 Pa. 253, 328 A.2d 507 (1974); Nevels v. State, 216 So.2d 529 Page 731 (Miss.1968); People v. Savage, 102 Ill.App.2d 477, 242 N.E.2d 446 (1968); Crummel v. State, 46 Wis.2d 348, 174 N.W.2d 517 (1970) (th......
  • Tolbert v. State, No. 56850
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • August 12, 1987
    ...240, 243 (Miss.1979); Norman v. State, 302 So.2d 254, 258-59 (Miss.1974); Ford v. State, 226 So.2d 378, 381 (Miss.1969); Nevels v. State, 216 So.2d 529, 530 (Miss.1968); see also Miranda, 384 U.S. at 477, 86 S.Ct. at 1629, 16 L.Ed.2d at 725. The constitutionally mandated warnings followed b......
  • Boyles v. State, No. 45461
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • May 26, 1969
    ...from the facts in the case at bar. Moreover, the facts in the case at bar are remarkably similar to the facts in Nevels v. State, 216 So.2d 529 (Miss.1968). As is pointed out in the Miranda decision, supra, the purely voluntary and spontaneous admissions of a person who is in custody prior ......
  • Norman v. State, No. 48096
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • October 28, 1974
    ...300 So.2d 797 (Miss.1974); Ford v. State, 226 So.2d 378 (Miss.1969); Weissinger v. State, 218 So.2d 432 (Miss.1969); Nevels v. State, 216 So.2d 529 Appellant's argument concerning statements made by him after he and the other occupants of the house were brought to the front at 1148 Lewis St......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
20 cases
  • People v. Connelly, No. 84SA270
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • July 8, 1985
    ...subject to suppression under the fifth amendment. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Powell, 459 Pa. 253, 328 A.2d 507 (1974); Nevels v. State, 216 So.2d 529 Page 731 (Miss.1968); People v. Savage, 102 Ill.App.2d 477, 242 N.E.2d 446 (1968); Crummel v. State, 46 Wis.2d 348, 174 N.W.2d 517 (1970) (th......
  • Tolbert v. State, No. 56850
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • August 12, 1987
    ...240, 243 (Miss.1979); Norman v. State, 302 So.2d 254, 258-59 (Miss.1974); Ford v. State, 226 So.2d 378, 381 (Miss.1969); Nevels v. State, 216 So.2d 529, 530 (Miss.1968); see also Miranda, 384 U.S. at 477, 86 S.Ct. at 1629, 16 L.Ed.2d at 725. The constitutionally mandated warnings followed b......
  • Boyles v. State, No. 45461
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • May 26, 1969
    ...from the facts in the case at bar. Moreover, the facts in the case at bar are remarkably similar to the facts in Nevels v. State, 216 So.2d 529 (Miss.1968). As is pointed out in the Miranda decision, supra, the purely voluntary and spontaneous admissions of a person who is in custody prior ......
  • Norman v. State, No. 48096
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • October 28, 1974
    ...300 So.2d 797 (Miss.1974); Ford v. State, 226 So.2d 378 (Miss.1969); Weissinger v. State, 218 So.2d 432 (Miss.1969); Nevels v. State, 216 So.2d 529 Appellant's argument concerning statements made by him after he and the other occupants of the house were brought to the front at 1148 Lewis St......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT