 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Eady12/4/2001
The jury found that the Defendant did not act in a "state of passion," Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-211(a), but rather that he acted in a knowing manner. We may not disturb this finding on appeal. We conclude that sufficient evidence was presented at trial to support the jury's finding that the Defendant was aware that his conduct was reasonably certain to cause the victim's death. See id. § 39-11-106(a)(20). This issue is therefore without merit.
B. Suppression of Defendant's Statement
The Defendant argues that the trial court erred by failing to suppress his statement to police. He claims that he did not voluntarily waive his rights prior to making the statement. In support of this argument, he points to the fact that he signed only part of part of the waiver of rights form provided by police: On the form, he provided his signature to indicate that he understood his rights; however, he refused to sign the second half of the form, which stated that he was voluntarily and willingly giving up his right to remain silent, that he did not wish to have a lawyer present during questioning, and that he was not coerced into giving his statement. Under the signature line for the second portion of the form, Detective Alvarez wrote the following: "Defendant refused to sign. Said he understood his rights and proceeded to give a statement to myself and Cpt. Burnett who led the interview."
At the hearing on the motion to suppress the Defendant's statement, Detective Alvarez testified that after refusing to sign the second half of the waiver of rights form, the Defendant indicated no hesitation to speak to police about the crime. Alvarez testified that the Defendant did not request a lawyer, and he maintained that he never felt that the police were proceeding against the Defendant's wishes by taking the Defendant's statement. Alvarez stated that the Defendant told police that he was unwilling to sign the second signature line, but he also told police that he was willing to provide a statement. In addition, Alvarez stated that there was " o question in mind" that the Defendant understood his rights at the time he made his statement.
The Defendant also testified at the hearing on the motion to suppress. He stated, "They read me my rights and asked me if I understood my rights, and I signed that I did understand my rights." With regard to the signature line that he refused to sign, the Defendant testified that he believed that "if signed it . . . signed his rights away; that had to tell the detectives whatever he knew." He stated that he believed that if he signed the second portion of the waiver of rights form, he "couldn't plead the 5th or remain silent; that had to speak without a lawyer . . . ." The Defendant claimed that at the time he made the statement, he was "scared to death and really didn't know what to do or wasn't really thinking clearly." However, he also told the trial court that he did in fact understand his rights, and he testified that he made his statement with a full understanding of his rights. The Defendant further testified that he was twenty-one years old, that he could read and write, and that he had completed his G.E.D.
At the conclusion of the Defendant's testimony, the trial court overruled the Defendant's motion to suppress the statement. The court found that the Defendant understood his rights and "waived those rights, whether or not he signed a particular document." The court concluded, " n looking at the totality of the circumstances, it's clear [the Defendant] understood what his rights were, and understanding those rights, he proceeded to give a statement to the detective ."
When an evidentiary hearing is held on the merit
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|