BEFORE ROY NOBLE LEE, SULLIVAN AND ANDERSON
SULLIVAN, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:
Lee Muriel Hemmingway appeals his conviction of manslaughter and sentence of fifteen (15) years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections.
Hemmingway lived at the home of Henry Taylor in Grenada, Mississippi. On June 1, 1984, the series of events that culminated in this appeal took place. Henry Taylor, his wife, Bobbie, Marilyn Spearman, Hemmingway and his brother, Dewayne Hemmingway, were all present at the Taylor residence. Some four or five weeks earlier, Henry Taylor had stabbed Hemmingway in the back some four or five times.
Bobbie, Marilyn and Dewayne decided to go to the store when Henry came to the car and said he wanted to go to a cafe. Bobbie got out of the car and returned to the house. Both Henry and Hemmingway had been drinking.
Dewayne tried to get Henry out of the car. Hemmingway was standing by the car with a butcher knife in his hand, and preventing Henry from leaving the vehicle. Alarmed, Dewayne turned and called Bobbie to come back out. When Dewayne turned around, Henry was out of the car claiming that Hemmingway had stabbed him. Henry collapsed at the front door of the car. Hemmingway walked around, stomped in Henry's blood, then threw the knife behind the house. When the police arrived, Hemmingway flagged the officer down and told him that he was the one that did it.
At the police station, Hemmingway was advised of his Miranda rights, and gave a confession.
WAS IT ERROR TO OVERRULE HEMINGWAY'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS HIS STATEMENT?
As the prosecution had no eyewitnesses to the actual stabbing, Hemmingway claims the admission of his statement was particularly prejudical. Confessions tend to have an adverse effect on defendants in criminal prosecutions. Hemmingway claims that because he was intoxicated he was not in control of his faculties, that he was in a state of mania, and that he did not know what he was saying and that, therefore, he could not have freely, voluntarily and intelligently waived his constitutional rights when he gave his statement.
A suppression hearing was had. The question of an intelligent, knowing and voluntary waiver is essentially a fact question to be determined by the judge
from the totality of the circumstances. Neal v. State, 451 So.2d 743 (Miss. 1984). Many times we have discussed the degree of intoxication and its effect upon the admissibility of a confession. Stevens v. State, 458 So.2d 726 (Miss. 1984); Kemp v. State, 352 So.2d 446 (Miss. 1977); Moore v. State, 237 So.2d 844 (Miss. 1970); and State v. Williams, 208 So.2d 172 (Miss. 1968).
Upon the totality of the circumstances of this record, the trial judge was justified in finding that there was on Hemmingway's part a free, voluntary and intelligent waiver of constitutional safeguards when the statement was given.
WAS IT ERROR NOT TO REQUIRE THE PROSECUTION TO PRODUCE ALL OF THE WITNESSES TO HEMMINGWAY'S ...