Peden v. State, No. 53563
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi |
| Writing for the Court | Before PATTERSON; PATTERSON |
| Citation | 425 So.2d 1356 |
| Parties | David Paul PEDEN v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Docket Number | No. 53563 |
| Decision Date | 02 February 1983 |
Page 1356
v.
STATE of Mississippi.
Page 1357
Binder, Kirksey & DeLaughter, Alvin M. Binder, William B. Kirksey, Jackson, John E. Gregg, Raymond, for appellant.
Bill Allain, Atty. Gen. by Catherine Walker Underwood, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
Before PATTERSON, C.J., and ROY NOBLE LEE and PRATHER, JJ.
PATTERSON, Chief Justice, for the Court:
David Paul Peden was convicted in the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial District of Hinds County of arson and shooting into an occupied dwelling. He was sentenced to serve five years for the arson conviction, with three years suspended, and one year for shooting into the dwelling which was to run concurrent with the arson sentence.
Although Peden was separately indicted on the two charges, the two were consolidated for trial. The first issue presented is whether the trial court erred in denying Peden's motion for a directed verdict at the close of the state's case on the indictment charging him with shooting into an occupied dwelling. We are of the opinion this assignment is without merit because Peden presented evidence in his own behalf following the overruling of his motion for a directed verdict and failed to renew this motion at the conclusion of all the evidence by requesting a peremptory instruction of not guilty or by moving for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict thereby waiving any error in the denial of the motion for a directed verdict. Harris v. State, 413 So.2d 1016 (Miss.1982); State v. Russell, 358 So.2d 409 (Miss.1978).
Peden's second contention for reversal is that the trial court erred in permitting testimony of an alleged confession into evidence for the reason that it was not shown to be voluntarily given or that Peden understood the Miranda warning prior to making the confession.
Without detailing the evidence concerning the Miranda warning, we think we need only say that there was ample evidence to support the trial court's finding that the warning was given and was understood. It is necessary however, that the pertinent facts concerning the alleged confession be related.
On the evening of November 24, 1980, at about 9:00 o'clock p.m., Tom Black returned to his home from his employment and found that someone had attempted to break in through the front door. After opening the door and entering his home, he heard a gun shot ring out whereupon he called the Hinds County Sheriff's Department. Officer Sylvester arrived at Black's home about fifteen minutes later and encountered Peden, a stranger to Black, who had arrived on the premises shortly after the gun was fired, stating that he was there looking for some dogs.
An investigation by Officer Sylvester revealed a shot had been fired into a bedroom of the house and a projectile had gone through the house and was lodged in the back wall. The investigation also revealed that an area around a back window, which smelled of diesel fuel, had recently been on fire. Officer Sylvester observed that Peden, who was still on the premises, smelled of diesel and had mud and soot on his hands. Shortly thereafter Officer Bryant arrived and because of Peden's appearance, the presence of a jug of diesel fuel and a high powered rifle, which had been recently fired, in Peden's truck, he was arrested and taken to the Hinds County Sheriff's office. While enroute Peden was given the Miranda warning by Bryant.
During the trial Officer Sylvester attempted to give testimony of an alleged oral confession given by Peden after questioning at the sheriff's office. An objection was interposed to it based upon the grounds that it was not freely and voluntarily given and that Peden was not advised of his constitutional rights pursuant to Miranda. A suppression hearing was then conducted outside the presence of the jury.
Page 1358
Officers Sylvester and Bryant were the only witnesses for the state. According to Bryant Peden confessed in the lounge of the sheriff's office approximately 30 to 45 minutes after he had been brought there. Bryant testified he left Officer Sylvester with Peden for approximately twenty minutes, following which he was requested to return to the lounge because...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. State, No. 92-DP-00890-SCT
...The procedural dictates of Agee take effect only after Davis puts the issue of voluntariness into question. See Peden v. State, 425 So.2d 1356, 1358 (Miss.1983)("When objection is made to the introduction of the confession, the accused is entitled to a preliminary hearing on the question of......
-
Holland v. State, No. 92-KA-00053-SCT
...the verdict, Holland has waived the sufficiency error on appeal. Griffin v. State, 495 So.2d 1352, 1353 (Miss.1986); Peden v. State, 425 So.2d 1356, 1357 (Miss.1983); Harris v. State, 413 So.2d 1016, 1018 Holland complains that his attorney's failure to renew the motion for a directed verdi......
-
Odem v. State, No. 2002-KM-01689-COA.
...Holland has waived the sufficiency error on appeal. Griffin v. State, 495 So.2d 881 So.2d 950 1352, 1353 (Miss.1986); Peden v. State, 425 So.2d 1356, 1357 (Miss.1983); Harris v. State, 413 So.2d 1016, 1018 (emphasis added). The key principle in Holland was that the issue of sufficiency of t......
-
Griffin v. State, No. 56390
...weight of the evidence in his motion for a new trial. Accordingly, the question is properly before this Court. Peden v. State, 425 So.2d 1356 (Miss.1983); Harris v. State, 413 So.2d 1016 Focusing on the evidence most favorable to the State, as is required in assessing the case, we find no b......
-
Davis v. State, No. 92-DP-00890-SCT
...The procedural dictates of Agee take effect only after Davis puts the issue of voluntariness into question. See Peden v. State, 425 So.2d 1356, 1358 (Miss.1983)("When objection is made to the introduction of the confession, the accused is entitled to a preliminary hearing on the question of......
-
Holland v. State, No. 92-KA-00053-SCT
...the verdict, Holland has waived the sufficiency error on appeal. Griffin v. State, 495 So.2d 1352, 1353 (Miss.1986); Peden v. State, 425 So.2d 1356, 1357 (Miss.1983); Harris v. State, 413 So.2d 1016, 1018 Holland complains that his attorney's failure to renew the motion for a directed verdi......
-
Odem v. State, No. 2002-KM-01689-COA.
...Holland has waived the sufficiency error on appeal. Griffin v. State, 495 So.2d 881 So.2d 950 1352, 1353 (Miss.1986); Peden v. State, 425 So.2d 1356, 1357 (Miss.1983); Harris v. State, 413 So.2d 1016, 1018 (emphasis added). The key principle in Holland was that the issue of sufficiency of t......
-
Griffin v. State, No. 56390
...weight of the evidence in his motion for a new trial. Accordingly, the question is properly before this Court. Peden v. State, 425 So.2d 1356 (Miss.1983); Harris v. State, 413 So.2d 1016 Focusing on the evidence most favorable to the State, as is required in assessing the case, we find no b......