Page v. State

Decision Date08 July 1982
Docket NumberNo. 38421,38421
PartiesPAGE v. The STATE.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

John N. Crudup, Gainesville, for William Anthony Page.

Jeff C. Wayne, Dist. Atty., Gainesville, Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., for the State.

SMITH, Justice.

William Anthony Page was tried and convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. In this appeal he raises six enumerations of error. We affirm.

On the night of August 10, 1981, appellant and a companion, Gregory A. Goins, were hitchhiking along Interstate 85 in southern North Carolina. The two were picked up by Mark Robert DesNoyers as DesNoyers drove from his family's home in North Carolina to his Fort Lauderdale residence. The three young men proceeded through South Carolina without incident, stopping only to buy beer, gas, and some fireworks. According to Goins, the travelers "smoked a couple of joints" and took some red and black pills furnished by DesNoyers.

After crossing the Georgia state line, the party left the interstate in search of more drugs. This detour proved to be fruitless, however, and an argument ensued between DesNoyers, the driver of the car, and appellant, who was seated on the passenger's side. Goins, who had been sleeping in the back seat, awoke in time to observe DesNoyers and appellant engaged in a heated exchange concerning the group's unsuccessful side trip. The two traded blows, then DesNoyers, a hairdresser, reached for a pair of scissors he kept hidden in the front seat. Appellant drew his pocketknife and stabbed DesNoyers in the left chest, killing him.

Appellant took the wheel of DesNoyers' Pinto, drove for several miles, then dumped the body. In his statement to police, appellant said that he threw the victim into a river; Goins testified at trial that the body was dumped by the roadside. Page and Goins, still in possession of DesNoyers' car, headed north and drove to West Virginia.

DesNoyers' badly decomposed body was discovered floating in the Chattahoochee River some six weeks later. Two fishermen spotted the victim's body lodged among some dead trees in the river. The body was still clothed in the blue jeans and green shirt worn by DesNoyers on the date of his disappearance. An autopsy revealed that the cause of death was a stab wound to the chest.

1. Based on this record, a jury was clearly authorized to find appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of murder. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).

2. Appellant's first, fourth, fifth, and sixth enumerations cite as error the admission into evidence of an inculpatory statement made to Georgia police officers at the time of appellant's arrest in Charleston, West Virginia. In the confession, which was tape-recorded and reduced to writing for trial, appellant stated that "I beat him in the face ... I stabbed and throwed him in the back seat of the car and took him over to [the] Chattahoochee River and put him in the river."

(a) In his sixth enumeration of error, appellant contends that his statements to police were improperly admitted because they were involuntary. We cannot agree.

Two separate Jackson-Denno hearings were held at trial to determine the voluntariness of appellant's statement. The trial court's finding that appellant's statement was made following proper Miranda warnings and was voluntary is clearly authorized by the evidence. See Pittman v. State, 245 Ga. 453, 265 S.E.2d 592 (1980); Crawford v. State, 245 Ga. 89, 90, 263 S.E.2d 131 (1980).

(b) Appellant further contends that the transcript of his tape-recorded statement was improperly admitted because it was not supported by a proper foundation. Appellant's contentions are without merit.

Two separate transcripts were made of appellant's statement. One version was the product of shorthand notes by a stenographer employed by the Charleston police department who was present during the confession; the other was a typed transcription of the tape recording made by Georgia police officers. Only the latter was read to the jury and admitted into evidence at trial. Appellant's sole objection to the use of this transcript of his statement is that material differences in the two versions rendered the tape transcript inadmissible.

In Brooks v. State, 141 Ga.App. 725, 234 S.E.2d 541 (1975), the court set out seven prerequisites for admission of a taped statement. The state must establish: 1) that the mechanical device was capable of taking testimony; 2) that the operator was competent; 3) the authenticity and correctness of the recording; 4) that no changes, additions, or deletions were made; 5) the manner of preservation; 6) the identity of the speakers; and 7) that the testimony was not elicited through duress. See Solomon, Inc. v. Edgar, 92 Ga.App. 207, 211, 88 S.E.2d 167 (1955). The state offered ample proof on each of these elements at trial. The officer who operated the tape machine testified that he had operated the machine many times in the past, that the machine ran well, and that the transcript was an accurate and complete representation of appellant's statement. Counsel for appellant was allowed to review the tape with the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Franks v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • June 28, 2004
    ...about knowledge of the case and its announcement that it would move these jurors to the front of the venire. 51. See Page v. State, 249 Ga. 648, 651, 292 S.E.2d 850 (1982). 52. See Dampier v. State, 245 Ga. 427, 433, 265 S.E.2d 565 (1980) (trial court did not err by replacing excused prospe......
  • Johnson v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • July 6, 1999
    ...the manner of preservation; 6) the identity of the speakers; and 7) the statement was not elicited through duress. Page v. State, 249 Ga. 648(2)(b), 292 S.E.2d 850 (1982); Nobles v. State, 233 Ga.App. 63(3), 503 S.E.2d 321 (1998). The State adequately proved these elements, and the defense ......
  • Chancellor v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • February 7, 1983
    ...and that discretion will not be controlled except where there appears to have been an abuse of discretion.' [Cits.]" Page v. State, 249 Ga. 648, 651, 292 S.E.2d 850. That discretion is also to be exercised upon a request to reopen after the jury commences deliberations. State v. Roberts, 24......
  • Whatley v. Terry
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • October 6, 2008
    ...108, 110(1)(d), 646 S.E.2d 207 (2007) (noting the trial court's "broad discretion to reopen evidence" and citing Page v. State, 249 Ga. 648, 650-651(2)(c), 292 S.E.2d 850 (1982)); Village Creations, Ltd. v. Crawfordville Enterprises, Inc., 232 Ga. 131, 132-133, 206 S.E.2d 3 (1974) (finding ......
  • 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