 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Harris5/23/2005
endant signed a waiver. After signing the waiver, Investigator Nelson asked the defendant if he wanted to give a statement. In response, the defendant told him that he had already wrote out a statement in Texas. Investigator Nelson asked the defendant if he could write out another statement. Investigator Nelson testified that defendant then wrote out a second statement.
Investigator Nelson testified that although the defendant had attempted suicide he was not medicated during the time he was asked to write out a second statement. Investigator Nelson further testified that the defendant did not appear preoccupied or confused during the time he was asked to write out a statement. The State submitted into evidence the defendant's statements and journal; the waiver forms signed by the defendant; a written narrative made by the arresting officer in Texas; and the videotape.
During the suppression hearing, the defendant claimed that he was intoxicated when he wrote out his statement to police in Texas and medicated when he wrote out his statement to police in Tennessee. However, the defendant admitted that he remembered the six hundred mile drive to Texas, most of the events surrounding his arrest, and the fact the he was able to write out a detailed statement and read it aloud to the Texas authorities. He also admitted that he was advised of his rights by the Texas and Tennessee authorities and that no one forced him to write a statement. In addition, he admitted that he understood his rights and remembered signing the waiver forms before writing out his statement for authorities in Tennessee.
At the conclusion of the suppression hearing, the trial court found that the defendant freely and voluntarily made written statements to authorities in Texas and Tennessee after being advised of his Miranda rights. The trial court also found that the defendant's written statements from his journal were admissible for impeachment purposes because the defendant failed to show why these statements should be suppressed other than the fact that they were his private thoughts. As a result, the trial court denied the defendant's motion to suppress.
Both the United States and Tennessee Constitutions protect a defendant from compelled self-incrimination. See U.S. Const. amend. V; Tenn. Const. art. I, ยง 9. As a result, government authorities are prohibited from using statements made by the defendant during custodial interrogation unless the defendant has been previously advised of his constitutional right against compulsory self incrimination and right to an attorney. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966). Whether waiver of a right is voluntarily and knowingly made is determined by the totality of the circumstances under which the right was waived. See State v. Middlebrooks, 840 S.W.2d 317, 326 (Tenn. 1992). However, " defendant's subjective perception alone is not sufficient to justify a conclusion of involuntariness in the constitutional sense. Rather, coercive police activity is a necessary predicate to finding that a confession is not voluntary." State v. Smith, 933 S.W.2d 450, 455 (Tenn. 1996) (citations and internal quotations omitted).
When reviewing the trial court's decision on a motion to suppress, this Court conducts a de novo review of the trial court's conclusions of law and application of law to facts. See State v. Walton, 41 S.W.3d 75, 81 (Tenn. 2001). However, the trial court's findings of fact are presumed correct unless the evidence contained in the record preponderates against them. See State v. Daniel, 12 S.W.3d 420, 423 (Tenn. 2000). "Questions of credibility of the witnesses, the weight and value of the evidence, and resolution of conflicts in the e
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|