Adams v. State
| Decision Date | 02 October 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. A09A1391.,A09A1391. |
| Citation | 300 Ga. App. 294,684 S.E.2d 404 |
| Parties | ADAMS v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Timothy L. Kimble, for appellant.
T. Joseph Campbell, Dist. Atty., Gregory S. Dickson, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
After a jury trial, Andee Daniel Adams was convicted of one count of burglary1 and one count of criminal damage to property.2 On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress and challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support both convictions. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
1. Adams argues that he was entitled to a full evidentiary hearing on his motion to suppress. Adams also asserts that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress, arguing that the facts set forth in the affidavit supporting the search warrant did not comport with the testimony of the witnesses at trial, and thus, the warrant lacked credible evidentiary support. Adams's arguments lack merit.
(a) OCGA § 17-5-30(a) and (b) provide:
(a) A defendant aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure may move the court for the return of property, the possession of which is not otherwise unlawful, and to suppress as evidence anything so obtained on the grounds that: . . .
(2) The search and seizure with a warrant was illegal because the warrant is insufficient on its face, there was not probable cause for the issuance of the warrant, or the warrant was illegally executed.
(b) The motion shall be in writing and state facts showing that the search and seizure were unlawful. The judge shall receive evidence out of the presence of the jury on any issue of fact necessary to determine the motion; and the burden of proving that the search and seizure were lawful shall be on the state. . . .
Approximately five months before trial, Adams filed a Motion to Suppress Illegally Seized Evidence and for the Return of all Property not Subject to Lawful Detention. In the one-page motion, he argued:
On [October 12, 2005], officers of the Gordon County Sheriff's Office conducted an illegal search of [Adams's] person or property or both, but did not have probable cause on that date to believe Defendant was engaged in or guilty of any crime. . . . [U]nder the authority of State v. Owens, 285 Ga.App. 370, 646 S.E.2d 340 (2007), this motion is sufficient to put the State on notice of the specific grounds for the motion and the legal issues to be resolved at the hearing.
On the first day of trial, Adams's counsel brought to the trial court's attention that he had a number of motions, including a motion to suppress, that he wanted heard before the trial began. The trial court then heard oral argument from both parties on the motion to suppress and reviewed the warrant and supporting affidavit marked as State's Exhibit Number 1.3 While Adams's attorney stated, "I'd like the affiant to be tested on that," when referring to the affidavit's evidence of a burglary, he made no objection to the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress without taking witness' testimony.
"When reviewing a trial court's decision on a motion to suppress, an appellate court's responsibility is to ensure that there was a substantial basis for the decision."4 The State bears the burden of proof to show the lawfulness of the search made pursuant to a warrant.5 "This burden is satisfied by production of the warrant and its supporting affidavit, and by showing either by those documents or by other evidence that the warrant is not subject to the statutory challenge alleged."6 Once the State introduced the warrant and affidavit, the burden of producing evidence shifted to Adams, the challenger of the search warrant, to produce evidence to support his challenge.7
The trial court determined that, on its face, the affidavit contained sufficient facts for the issuance of the search warrant. At that point, it was up to Adams to produce evidence to support his challenge.8 He failed to do so. Nor did he insist on a full evidentiary hearing.9 "In this evidentiary posture, the [S]tate met its burden of proof as a matter of law and the denial of [Adams's] motion to suppress was mandated."10
(b) Adams also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the issuance of the warrant, claiming that the testimony of the witnesses at trial differed from what was represented in the detective's affidavit. "A search warrant will only issue upon facts sufficient to show probable cause11 that a crime is being committed or has been committed."12
The magistrate's task in determining if probable cause exists to issue a search warrant is simply to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the "veracity" and "basis of knowledge" of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.13
On appeal, this Court gives the magistrate's finding of probable cause substantial deference and, using the totality of the circumstances analysis, reviews the decision to determine if the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed to issue the search warrant.14
The facts supporting the affidavit were averred to by Detective Brian Crider. Crider swore to the following:
On or about September 02, 2005, officers began an investigation into the theft of wiring and electronic items from the Harbison Walker building on McDaniel Station Road[,] where a vehicle belonging to And[ee] Adams was located [i]n close proximity to the crime scene. On October 12, 2005[,] the truck was again spotted near the Harbison Walker building with a four wheeler on the back of it. Investigation revealed that the building had been burglarized earlier this date. When a vehicle belonging to the building co-owner pulled behind Adams, he fled the scene and drove to Adairsville as he was being followed by the building owners. The vehicle was found at the Adams residence at 308 Main Street Adairsville, Ga. This search warrant is to cover the residence along with outbuildings and all vehicles within the c[u]rtilage of the residence.
Based on these facts, the magistrate determined that there was probable cause to search Adams's premises for "certain property, namely: [c]ellular alarm system, wiring[,] and tools, which are the fruits of the crime of burglary."
Adams argues there was no sound basis for issuing the search warrant because the facts set forth in the affidavit were speculative at best, and because the items intended for recovery were never found at Adams's home.15 Adams, however, does not contend that the detective was deliberately lying or was otherwise untrustworthy. "An affidavit is presumed valid in the absence of evidence that it contained deliberate falsehoods, was made with reckless disregard for the truth, or that the affiant consciously omitted material facts that, if included, would have indicated the absence of probable cause."16 Adams has produced no such evidence and therefore has not rebutted the affidavit's validity. Under the totality of the circumstances, we cannot say that the magistrate lacked a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed for issuing the search warrant.17
2. Adams also argues that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of burglary and criminal damage to property in the second degree. We disagree.
On appeal from a criminal conviction, the evidence must be construed in the light most favorable to the verdict, and the defendant no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence; moreover, an appellate court does not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility but only determines whether the evidence is sufficient under the standard of Jackson v. Virginia.18
So viewed, the evidence shows the following. The Harbison-Walker Glass Rock facility owned by Oostanaula Properties, LLC, was located in Gordon County. The facility was a fused silica manufacturing plant that had been out of operation for approximately eight to ten years prior to its purchase by Oostanaula in 2004. At the time of purchase, the facility was intact, including its copper wire, transformers, equipment, and infrastructure. In May 2005, the owners began to notice that copper wire was missing from the facility, and there were numerous burglaries and wire thefts at the facility in the years that followed.19
In an effort to catch the persons burglarizing the facility and stealing wire, Randall Fox, one of the owners, hired Rylie Jackson to watch the silica facility and be on the lookout for intruders. Other nearby neighbors also kept an eye on the facility. On several occasions in September and October 2005, a truck with an antique tag was observed near the facility carrying a four-wheeler in its bed. On one of these occasions, Alvin Poole observed what looked like copper wire hanging out of the back of the truck; Poole was suspicious and followed the truck to Adairsville. Adams was identified as the driver of the truck.
Adams lived in Adairsville with his wife and three children. He drove a Ford truck with an antique tag and owned several four-wheelers. Adams had a hobby of collecting old bottles and making wine and jam from blackberries he picked in the wild. On the date in question, Adams admitted to driving near the silica facility but claimed he was there to look for old bottles; he also admitted that he had been there in the past to pick blackberries.
On October 12, 2005, Fox received a call from Jackson after he heard a four-wheeler near the facility, saw one of the facility's doors open, and saw tracks that looked like a four-wheeler's in the lower building of the facility. Fox and his security coordinator, Charles Burnette, went to the facility and observed scuff marks in the silica on the floor where the wire had been dragged out of the building as well as fresh four-wheeler tracks. Fox also observed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Slaughter v. State
... ... See Adams v. State, 300 Ga.App. 294, 300(2)(b), 684 S.E.2d 404 (2009) (affirming conviction for criminal damage to property where the evidence showed that the defendant has access to the property at issue during the time it was damaged). 2. Slaughter also contends that the trial court erred ... ...
-
In re A.C.R-M
... ... According to the property owner, the damage to the property totaled $2,041.The State filed a delinquency petition on April 22, 2010, charging A.C.RM. with criminal damage to property in the second degree by intentionally damaging the ... 770, 772(2), 589 S.E.2d 331 (2003).5. (Punctuation omitted.) In the Interest of J.S., 296 Ga.App. 144, 147(2)(a), 673 S.E.2d 645 (2009).6. See Adams v. State, 300 Ga.App. 294, 300(2)(b), 684 S.E.2d 404 (2009); J.S., 296 Ga.App. at 147148(2)(a), 673 S.E.2d 645.7. See Adams, 300 Ga.App. at 300 (2) ... ...