Allen v. State
| Decision Date | 06 September 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 28036,28036 |
| Citation | 231 Ga. 17,200 S.E.2d 106 |
| Parties | Randall Arthur ALLEN v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Telford, Stewart & Stephens, Charles W. Stephens, Smith, Smith & Frost, J. Randall Frost, Gainesville, for appellant.
Jeff C. Wayne, Dist. Atty., Gainesville, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Courtney Wilder Stanton, Asst. Atty. Gen., B. Dean Grindle, Jr., Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
This appeal is from convictions and sentences on two counts of murder and one count of burglary. Held:
1. The trial court did not err in overruling appellant's objection to the word 'alias' in the indictment. 'Where the accused is known by different names . . . it is lawful for the indictment to identify the accused by all such names as alias dictus.' Andrews v. State, 196 Ga. 84(9), 26 S.E.2d 263.
2. The trial court did not violate the commonly called 'coherency test' when determining at a Jackson-Denno hearing that the appellant's confession was given knowingly and voluntarily. Although the appellant testified that he had consumed a certain amount of liquor and narcotics prior to his arrest, there was ample evidence to support a finding that his confession was the product of a rational intellect and a free will. The cases of Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U.S. 199, 80 S.Ct. 274, 4 L.Ed.2d 242; Reck v. Pate, 367 U.S. 433, 81 S.Ct. 1541, 6 L.Ed.2d 948, and Townsend v. Sain,372 U.S. 293, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 are distinguishable from the instant case on their facts.
3. There is no merit in the contention that the search and seizure from a certain Buick automobile was illegal because the state failed to prove that said Buick was not owned by the appellant. Both prior to and after the search and seizure the appellant knowingly and voluntarily confessed that the vehicle was stolen. Dutton v. State, 228 Ga. 850(1), 188 S.E.2d 794; Choker v. State, 114 Ga.App. 43, 150 S.E.2d 294.
4. Appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial when a witness enumerated the articles seized from the Buick automobile. There were over 65 articles, some of which were identified as belonging to the victims. The appellant argues that the testimony as to articles seized which were not relevant to the crime with which he was charged prejudiced the jury by suggesting that he had been on a 'burglarizing spree.' In denying the motion the trial court clearly instructed the jury to consider only those articles which were relevant to the issues on trial and to disregard the others. We find no reversible error. Young v. State, 226 Ga. 553, 556, 176 S.E.2d 52; Wooten v. State, 224 Ga. 106(3), 160 S.E.2d 403. See Pritchard v. State, 225 Ga. 690(1), 171 S.E.2d 130.
5. There is no merit in appellant's contention that the photographs of the bloody victims introduced into evidence prejudiced the jury. Johnson v. State, 226 Ga. 511, 175 S.E.2d 840.
6. Appellant contends that the introduction in evidence of a gun cleaning kit with his fingerprints thereon found in the Buick automobile illegally placed his character in issue. We do not agree. Possession of a gun cleaning kit is not a crime.
7. One waiver of constitutional rights applies to all crimes which are admitted during the confession. The record shows the appellant was arrested for driving without a license at 1:30 p.m. in Rabun County. Thereafter he first confessed to stealing the Buick automobile in Atlanta, wrecking it in White County and stealing another automobile after which he confessed to the burglary and murders. He was transported from ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blake v. Zant
...homes. Creamer v. State, 232 Ga. 136, 137, 205 S.E.2d 240 (1974); Pass v. State, 227 Ga. 730, 182 S.E.2d 779 (1971); Allen v. State, 231 Ga. 17, 200 S.E.2d 106 (1973). Furthermore, only one involved imposition of the death penalty, which is hardly suggestive of any particular sentencing Exa......
-
Stevens v. State, 36943
...is known by different names, however, it is lawful for the indictment to identify the accused by such names as aliases. Allen v. State, 231 Ga. 17, 200 S.E.2d 106 (1973). In the present case, two of the former convictions introduced at the sentencing phase of the defendant's trial were in t......
-
McCorquodale v. State
...233 Ga. 117, 210 S.E.2d 659; Carter v. State, 227 Ga. 788, 183 S.E.2d 392; Wheeler v. State, 229 Ga. 617, 193 S.E.2d 814; Allen v. State, 231 Ga. 17, 200 S.E.2d 106; Smith v. State, 230 Ga. 876, 199 S.E.2d 793; Lingerfelt v. State, 231 Ga. 354, 201 S.E.2d 445; Echols v. State, 231 Ga. 633, ......
-
Eberheart v. State
...victim. Johnson v. State, 226 Ga. 511(2), 175 S.E.2d 840, supra; Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68(5), 179 S.E.2d 76, supra; Allen v. State, 231 Ga. 17(5), 200 S.E.2d 106; Dixon v. State, 231 Ga. 33(2) 200 S.E.2d The trial court did not err in admitting the questioned exhibits. 5. It was not e......