Hightower v. State

Defendant's statements during several interviews at the police station before he was given Miranda rights were admissible since he was not in custody at the time and his statements were not inculpatory.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

A jury found Willie Lee Hightower guilty of the malice murder of Ms. Mae Brown. He appeals from the judgment of conviction and the life sentence entered by the trial court on the jury’s guilty verdict.1

1. A neighbor found the body of Ms. Brown lying on the floor of her home. She died from a gun shot wound to the head. Material taken from under her fingernails was submitted for DNA testing. On the day of the murder, the police questioned Hightower on three occasions, and twice did so without giving him Miranda warnings. During the course of the questioning, Hightower denied killing Ms. Brown, and admitted only that he had been in her house on previous occasions. Although Hightower could not explain how he sustained lacerations on his chest which were consistent with fingernail scratches, he was not arrested for the murder at that time. Several days later, the police questioned Hightower with regard to his participation in an unrelated bank robbery. At this time, he received Miranda warnings and was arrested for that robbery. In the statement that Hightower gave officers after questioning on this occasion, he again denied killing Ms. Brown, and admitted only that he broke into her home several days before the murder in order to steal her money. The DNA material under Ms. Brown’s fingernails matched Hightower’s DNA. His fingerprints were found at the murder scene. On this evidence, a rational trier of fact was authorized to find proof beyond a reasonable doubt of Hightower’s guilt of the malice murder of Ms. Brown. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560 1979.

Hightower v. State

Defendant's statements during several interviews at the police station before he was given Miranda rights were admissible since he was not in custody at the time and his statements were not inculpatory.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report