Arline v. State
| Decision Date | 23 January 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. S94A1524,S94A1524 |
| Citation | 264 Ga. 843,452 S.E.2d 115 |
| Parties | ARLINE v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Elizabeth Lane, Macon, for Herman Wade Arline.
Charles H. Weston, Dist. Atty., Macon, Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., Atlanta, Thomas J. Matthews, Asst. Dist. Atty., Macon, Susan V. Boleyn, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Law, Atlanta, for the State.
Rachelle L. Strausner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Law, Atlanta.
Herman Arline was convicted of the felony murder of Mark Findlay and sentenced to life imprisonment. 1 He appeals and we affirm.
1. Viewed to support the verdict, the evidence at trial established that appellant, accompanied by co-defendant Aric Allen, went to a Macon convenience store for the purpose of committing an armed robbery. Both appellant and Allen carried pistols; upon arriving at the store, Allen shot and killed the employee victim who was outside washing the store windows. Appellant then entered the store and attempted unsuccessfully to open the cash register. The evidence adduced was sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to find appellant guilty of felony murder beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
2. Appellant contends that a portion of his in-custody statement should not have been admitted because it was induced by hope of benefit. After turning himself in to the police, appellant was given Miranda warnings and was interrogated after waiving his rights. Although he admitted knowing Allen, he denied having recently been in Macon as well as any knowledge of the crimes. However, when confronted with the results of the ballistics tests and the fact that his girl friend was cooperating with the police, appellant admitted his participation in the attempted armed robbery. During the Jackson-Denno hearing, appellant testified that he was promised he would not be charged with murder because he was not the triggerman. The interrogating detectives testified that appellant was never so promised, although one of the detectives testified that he may have urged appellant to tell the truth and told appellant that the trial court might consider that he was not the triggerman and that he cooperated with the police. The trial court ruled that appellant's statement was voluntary and that the hope of benefit, if any, was insufficient to taint the voluntariness of the statement. Cooper v. State, 256 Ga. 234, 235(2), 347 S.E.2d 553 (1986). Merely telling a defendant that his or her cooperation will be made known to the prosecution does not constitute the "hope of benefit" sufficient to render a statement inadmissible under OCGA § 24-3-50. Helton v. State, 206 Ga.App. 600, 426 S.E.2d 172 (1992). It is the province of the trial court to weigh the credibility of the witnesses and unless clearly erroneous, its findings of fact will be upheld on appeal. Caffo v. State, 247 Ga. 751, 279...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taylor v. State
...v. State, 268 Ga. 690(3), 492 S.E.2d 185 (1997). 17. See Carswell v. State, 268 Ga. 531(2), 491 S.E.2d 343 (1997); Arline v. State, 264 Ga. 843(2), 452 S.E.2d 115 (1995); Leigh v. State, 223 Ga.App. 726(1), 478 S.E.2d 905 (1996). 18. See Lee, 270 Ga. at 800, 514 S.E.2d 1; Carswell, 268 Ga. ......
-
Wilson v. State
...its findings of fact will not be disturbed on appeal. Gilliam v. State, 268 Ga. 690(3), 492 S.E.2d 185 (1997); Arline v. State, 264 Ga. 843(2), 452 S.E.2d 115 (1995); Caffo v. State, 247 Ga. 751, 279 S.E.2d 678 (1981). We find no error in the trial court's ruling as to the absence of an ind......
-
Rivera v. State
...This is not the "slightest hope of benefit" that would render Rivera's statement involuntary and inadmissible. See Arline v. State, 264 Ga. 843, 844(2), 452 S.E.2d 115 (1995) (the "slightest hope of benefit" in OCGA § 24-3-50 is construed to mean the hope of a lighter sentence). Moreover, i......
-
Sosniak v. The State
...attorney could make a deal and that all he could do was provide information as to who had been cooperative. See Arline v. State, 264 Ga. 843, 844(2), 452 S.E.2d 115 (1995) (stating that “telling a defendant that his or her cooperation will be made known to the prosecution does not constitut......