Mooney v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-KA-01822-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-13-2007 Opinion Author: GRIFFIS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Possession of methamphetamine - Voluntariness of confession Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): CARLTON, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-08-2005 Appealed from: Leake County Circuit Court Judge: Marcus D. Gordon Disposition: CONVICTED OF POSSESSION OF METHAMPHETAMINE: SENTENCED TO SERVE A TERM OF FIVE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND PAY FINE OF $1,500. District Attorney: MARK SHELDON DUNCAN Case Number: 05-CR-012-LE-G |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | HARMON L. MOONEY |
PAT DONALD |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: W. GLENN WATTS |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Possession of methamphetamine - Voluntariness of confession |
| Summary of the Facts: | Harmon Mooney was convicted of felony possession of methamphetamine. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Mooney argues that the confession was involuntary because it was secured at a time when he was without legal counsel and at a time when he had not waived his right against self incrimination. The State meets its burden of proving the confession is voluntary and makes a prima facie case when an officer or other person who has knowledge of the facts testifies that the confession was made voluntarily, without threats, coercion, or offer of reward. Here, an officer’s testimony met the State’s burden. He testified that he did not coerce or promise anything to Mooney in exchange for the statements and his testimony was corroborated by two other officers. With regard to Moore’s invoking his right to counsel or his right against self-incrimination, there is no evidence from the record that suggests Mooney even attempted to invoke either of these rights. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
