Albert Lee v. State

Mississippi Supreme Court

Albert Lee v. State

34 So. 2d 736, 203 Miss. 264, 1948 Miss. LEXIS 259

CourtMississippi Supreme Court

DecidedApril 12, 1948

DocketNo. 36278.

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 34 So. 2d 736 (Albert Lee v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Albert Lee v. State, 34 So. 2d 736, 203 Miss. 264, 1948 Miss. LEXIS 259 (Mich. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

As will appear from our opinion rendered on the suggestion of error herein (201 Miss. 423, 30 So. (2d) 74, 75) “if the accused had not denied having made any confession at all, we would feel constrained to reverse the conviction herein because of the fact that” his confession was not freely and voluntarily made. But we were of the opinion that having denied making the confession he could not at the same time contend that it was made under the inducement of fear. The Supreme Court of the United States in reversing our judgment affirming this case, held that we were wrong in this and that the appellant’s denial of having made the confession does not bar him from objecting to its introduction in evidence on the ground that it was not free and voluntary. There *265 fore, in obedience to tbe judgment of that Court rendered herein and its mandate thereon the judgment of the court below will be reversed and the cause remanded to it for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

So ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

As will appear from our opinion rendered on the suggestion of error herein (201 Miss. 423, 30 So. (2d) 74, 75) “if the accused had not denied having made any confession at all, we would feel constrained to reverse the conviction herein because of the fact that” his confession was not freely and voluntarily made. But we were of the opinion that having denied making the confession he could not at the same time contend that it was made under the inducement of fear. The Supreme Court of the United States in reversing our judgment affirming this case, held that we were wrong in this and that the appellant’s denial of having made the confession does not bar him from objecting to its introduction in evidence on the ground that it was not free and voluntary. There *265 fore, in obedience to tbe judgment of that Court rendered herein and its mandate thereon the judgment of the court below will be reversed and the cause remanded to it for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 So. 2d 736, 203 Miss. 264, 1948 Miss. LEXIS 259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/albert-lee-v-state-miss-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack