Pierce v. State, 31480

Citation238 Ga. 126,231 S.E.2d 744
Decision Date04 January 1977
Docket NumberNo. 31480,31480
PartiesWilliam J. PIERCE, Sr. v. The STATE.
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

Gibbs, Leaphart & Smith, T. Alvin Leaphart, Jesup, for appellant.

W. Glenn Thomas, Jr., Dist. Atty., Jesup, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., John W. Dunsmore, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Susan V. Boleyn, Atlanta, for appellee.

UNDERCOFLER, Presiding Justice.

William J. Pierce, Jr. was tried and convicted for the murder of Helen Wilcox and received a life sentence. He appeals raising primarily the question of the voluntariness of his confession. We affirm.

1. On January 22, 1971, Sheriff Marcus Hall of Jeff Davis County received a phone call from Homer Wilcox reporting that his wife, Helen, was missing from their county grocery store. The sheriff himself had visited her in the store only an hour earlier, but a search of the immediate area failed to reveal any evidence of her whereabouts. Search parties were formed to comb the area on the following two Saturdays, but no clues were found.

The sheriff's suspicions were focused on the defendant on March 16, 1971, when he received a phone call from the sheriff in Baxley that he had a prisoner who wanted to talk to him. Sheriff Hall then drove to Baxley, read the defendant his rights and was told by the defendant that he knew something about his missing lady and that he would tell the sheriff about it later. The defendant was then taken from the Baxley jail by the sheriff of that county, Red Carter, and his deputy, Howard McCook, to Swainsboro for a hearing in an unrelated case.

On their return that same day, Sheriff Carter detoured to Hazlehurst and radioed to Sheriff Hall to meet him behind Golden's Hospital in the parking lot at eight o'clock. There in the police car, in the company of the two sheriffs from Appling County and an unidentified State trooper from Swainsboro, the defendant at this second meeting, after being given his Miranda warnings, told Sheriff Hall he wanted to show him where the body could be found, and that he had killed her by shooting her. After about an hour to an hour and a half search, the group did locate her body, and the defendant was driven back to Swainsboro.

The next morning, Sheriff Hall drove to Swainsboro to interview the defendant for the third time. Sheriffs Carter and McCook, and GBI Agent Sapp were present in the defendant's cell. Sapp read him his Miranda rights and the defendant filled out a waiver form, including the crime of murder and the date it occurred, and signed it himself. He then narrated the course of events leading to the strangulation, rather than shooting, of Helen Wilcox arising from her resistance to leaving the grocery store with him after he robbed the store with a gun.

The fourth and final interview occurred a month later in the Baxley jail with only Sheriff Hall present. After he was read his rights, he told the sheriff where to find the victim's pocketbook and a Calvert bottle. The sheriff located these items as described by the defendant.

In his enumerations of error 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7, the defendant challenged the admissibility of his confession and statements because he was not allowed to show the totality of the circumstances surrounding his statements during the Jackson v. Denno hearing. Clewis v. Texas, 386 U.S. 707, 87 S.Ct. 1338, 18 L.Ed.2d 423 (1967). On the basis that the confessions and their fruits were inadmissible, the defendant also contends that the court erred in failing to direct a verdict in his favor.

During the Jackson-Denno hearing, the sheriff testified to the facts set out above including the time, place, and persons present at the four interviews with the defendant, that the defendant was given his Miranda rights each time and was not promised any favor or reward, and that the defendant's statements were offered freely and voluntarily.

In order to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the second meeting in the parking lot, the defendant sought to call Sheriffs Carter and McCook to cross-examine them on what occurred in the defendant's their trip, leading up to the defendant's statements to Sheriff Hall. The state objected but the court was going to allow this inquiry until he discovered that Sheriff Carter, though under subpoena by the state, was not present in the courtroom. The defendant then attempted to call Deputy Sheriff McCook, who was present, but the state objected on the ground the circumstances prior to the statements were irrelevant. The court then refused to allow McCook to testify. The state also objected to Anita Blackburn's testimony, regarding the third meeting in Baxley when the defendant fully confessed, because Sheriff Hall stated that she was not present in the jail cell at the time of the confession, although she was at the jail itself.

The defendant himself was able to take the stand, but the court limited his testimony only to whether or not he received his Miranda warnings, which he denied.

Lieutenant Sapp, the GBI agent, was then called by the state in rebuttal to testify that he was present at the third meeting in Baxley in the defendant's cell when the defendant confessed and that the defendant himself filled out and signed a printed waiver form.

The trial court then ruled the confession and statements admissible, 1 the jury was returned, and the trial resumed. The defendant presented no witnesses and did not call any of the state...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 cases
  • Gates v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • October 24, 1979
    ...must consider the totality of the circumstances. Clewis v. Texas, 386 U.S. 707, 87 S.Ct. 1338, 18 L.Ed.2d 423 (1967); Pierce v. State, 238 Ga. 126, 231 S.E.2d 744 (1977). Defendant asserts that in deciding to admit the confessions the trial court failed to consider the age and educational l......
  • Jones v. State, 76600
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • November 10, 1988
    ......Harris, 256 Ga. 24, 343 S.E.2d 483 (1986), and on the question of voluntariness, the focus of Jackson-Denno. Pierce v. State, 238 Ga. 126, 128, 231 S.E.2d 744 (1977). Appellant has failed to show how he was harmed by the joint hearing during the trial's course. ......
  • Lyons v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • October 18, 1999
    ...the trial court found that Lyons understood his rights, and that his statements were the product of free will. See Pierce v. State, 238 Ga. 126, 231 S.E.2d 744 (1977) (burden is on the State to establish by a preponderance of the evidence the voluntariness of custodial statements). The cour......
  • Moore v. State
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • June 2, 1988
    ...trial record. Ga. Const. Art. VI, Sec. I, Par. IV; see generally, Thornton, supra at 165 (use of post-trial hearing); Pierce v. State, 238 Ga. 126, 129, 231 S.E.2d 744 (discussing return of case to trial court for Jackson-Denno hearing); Hicks v. State, 255 Ga. 503, 504-505, 340 S.E.2d 604 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT