Thomas v. State
| Docket Number: | 2008-KA-01637-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-26-2010 Opinion Author: Lamar, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Murder & First-degree arson - Admission of statements - Sufficiency of evidence - Weathersby rule Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson and Graves, P.JJ., Dickinson, Randolph, Kitchens, Chandler and Pierce, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-28-2008 Appealed from: WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Richard Smith Disposition: Count l: Conviction of murder and sentence of life imprisonment, as an habitual offender, in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections without the possibility of parole or probation. Count ll: Conviction of first degree arson and sentence of life imprisonment, as an habitual offender, in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections without the possibility of parole or probation. District Attorney: Willie Dewayne Richardson Case Number: 2007-146 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Tonnie L. Thomas |
GEORGE T. KELLY, JR. |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS | ||
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: | Murder & First-degree arson - Admission of statements - Sufficiency of evidence - Weathersby rule |
| Summary of the Facts: | Tonnie Thomas was convicted of murder and first-degree arson and sentenced to life without parole as a habitual offender. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Admission of statements Thomas argues that the trial court erred in allowing into evidence his March 2 and March 3 statements, claiming that he affirmatively had asserted his right to remain silent and his right to counsel on March 2. He argues he was intoxicated and in need of medical attention when he provided the first statement. Thomas further argues that the police impermissibly initiated the second interrogation, which resulted in his second statement. The trial court found that Thomas had made an ambiguous and equivocal request for an attorney, and that Thomas voluntarily had admitted to the murder prior to any questioning about the murder and arson. The trial court also found that the police had read Thomas his Miranda rights and Thomas had signed a waiver prior to any questions concerning the investigation. The trial court also found that Thomas clearly had waived his Miranda rights before providing a second statement on March 3. Under the Fifth Amendment, a person subjected to custodial interrogation must first be informed of his right to remain silent and right to counsel. If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease. If the individual states he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. Furthermore, a defendant’s request for counsel must be clear and unambiguous in order for an officer to stop questioning the suspect. It is undisputed that on March 2, Thomas admitted to killing the victim before the police had administered his Miranda warnings. Additionally, Thomas asserts that he had invoked his right to silence and his right to counsel prior to being Mirandized. However, the trial court made a factual finding that Thomas was not a credible witness and discounted his version of events. No officer testified that Thomas had invoked his right to silence or right to an attorney. The trial court, as the trier of fact, was not in manifest error in believing the officers rather than Thomas, and in finding that Thomas did not make an unequivocal request for an attorney. Thus, there was no violation of Thomas’s right to counsel or silence when the police took Thomas from his cell on Saturday before he gave his second statement. The record shows that Thomas is an adult male with a criminal record and who clearly was familiar with the justice system at the time of his arrest. He was familiar with the investigators through past dealings with the police, and not through any friendship or personal relationship. Thomas also testified that no officer had promised him anything in exchange for his confession. Thomas voluntarily had turned himself in to the police. Thomas smelled of alcohol and suffered from various injuries. However, the officers testified that Thomas had not appeared intoxicated. Although Thomas was injured, he had incurred these injuries the day before. Under the specific circumstances surrounding the confession, the police did not induce Thomas’s confession. Therefore, the March 2 statement was voluntary. Immediately after Thomas confessed, the investigator gave Thomas his Miranda warnings, and Thomas signed a waiver before providing a detailed statement and confession. Furthermore, the investigator again gave Thomas his Miranda warnings and Thomas signed a second waiver prior to his March 3 statement. Thus, the trial court did not commit manifest error in finding Thomas voluntarily had waived his Miranda rights. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence Thomas argues that he was the only witness to the crime, and that he consistently had stated that he killed the victims in self-defense. Thus, the Weathersby rule should apply. The Weathersby rule applies where the defendant or the defendant’s witnesses are the only eyewitnesses to the homicide. Their version, if reasonable, must be accepted as true, unless substantially contradicted in material particulars by a credible witness or witnesses for the state, or by the physical facts or by the facts of common knowledge. However, the Weathersby Rule is inapplicable where the defendant provides conflicting versions of how the killing took place, or initially denies the act. In this case, Thomas provided conflicting statements of how the killing took place. Thomas initially confessed that he had stabbed the victim during a fight. Thomas later provided a statement in which he denied killing the victim but stated that he had witnessed another person murder the victim. Therefore, the Weathersby Rule is inapplicable. Thomas also argues there is no evidence that he is guilty of the arson charge. The State’s case was based on circumstantial evidence. In circumstantial-evidence cases, the state is required to prove the accused’s guilt not only beyond a reasonable doubt, but to the exclusion of every other hypothesis consistent with innocence. The testimony of the victim’s neighbor, along with Thomas’s confession, place him at the scene during the time the fire began and with a motive for setting the fire. It was undisputed that the fire was the result of six separate fires that were intentionally set. Therefore, there was sufficient evidence to support the arson conviction. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
