JOHNSON v. THE STATE., 233 Ga. 58, 209 S.E.2.d 629 (1974)

Supreme Court of Georgia, (August 16, 1974)

Docket number: 29118
SUBMITTED

GUNTER, Justice. - SUBMITTED
Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/johnson-v-the-state-20409127
Id. vLex: VLEX-20409127

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Search in this document

Sponsored Ads:


Citations:

FeediconRSS What's this?

Cited by:

Georgia Court Of Appeals - The State v. Brown., 212 Ga. App. 800, 442 S.E.2d 818 (1994)

Supreme Court of Georgia - CASTEEL v. THE STATE., 235 Ga. 804, 221 S.E.2.d 579 (1975)

Georgia Court Of Appeals - Hudgins v. The State., 153 Ga. App. 601, 266 S.E.2d 283 (1980)

Georgia Court Of Appeals - Davis Et Al. v. The State., 164 Ga. App. 312, 295 S.E.2d 131 (1982)

Georgia Court Of Appeals - The State v. Key., 164 Ga. App. 411, 296 S.E.2d 60 (1982)

Georgia Court Of Appeals - Patterson v. The State., 210 Ga. App. 735, 437 S.E.2d 602 (1993)

Georgia Court Of Appeals - Abernathy v. The State., 157 Ga. App. 77, 276 S.E.2d 128 (1981)

Georgia Court Of Appeals - The State v. Avret., 156 Ga. App. 527, 275 S.E.2d 113 (1980)

Georgia Court Of Appeals - Nizer v. The State., 221 Ga. App. 301, 471 S.E.2d 254 (1996)

Georgia Court Of Appeals - Berger v. The State., 150 Ga. App. 166, 257 S.E.2d 8 (1979)

Text:

Fred M. Hasty, District Attorney, Walker P. Johnson, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, John W. Dunsmore, Jr., Deputy Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.Richard M. Nichols, for appellant.

This appeal is from convictions for armed robbery and aggravated assault. One error is enumerated: "The trial court erred in ruling that the statement of the defendant was freely and voluntarily made after proper warning when the defendant asserts that he requested a lawyer before the statement was made."

The only issue for decision is the admissibility of an alleged confession made by the appellant during an in-custody interrogation by a law enforcement officer. The trial judge conducted a Jackson-Denno hearing to determine whether the alleged confession should be excluded; the appellant testified that, after being advised of his rights, he requested a lawyer. The law enforcement officer testified that the appellant did not request a lawyer; therefore, whether to admit or exclude the incriminating evidence turns solely on the credibility of these two witnesses. The trial judge resolved this issue in favor of admissibility.

Factual and credibility determinations of this sort made by a trial judge after a suppression hearing must be accepted by appellate courts unless such determinations are clearly erroneous. See Lego v. Twomey, 404 U. S. 477 (92 SC 619, 30 LE2d 618) (1972), and United States v. Watson, 469 F2d 362 (5th Cir. 1972).

Upon a review of this record we hold that the decision of the trial judge in favor of admissibility was not clearly erroneous or an abuse of discretion.

1974

Sponsored Ads:




Activate your free trial now

Make your order

Need help? Contact us

Try vLex for FREE for 3 days

Access legal information from United States including:

  • Constitutions
  • Forms and Contracts
  • Legal Books and Journals
  • Case Law
  • News and Business
  • Regulations
  • U.S. Code

Try vLex without any commitment for 3 days and see why you need it.

3

days of Free Access