Canty v. State
| Decision Date | 01 March 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. S09G1465.,S09G1465. |
| Citation | 690 S.E.2d 609 |
| Parties | CANTY v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
690 S.E.2d 609
CANTY
v.
The STATE.
No. S09G1465.
Supreme Court of Georgia.
March 1, 2010.
Robert L. Persse, for appellant.
Richard A. Mallard, Dist. Atty., W. Scott Brannen, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
MELTON, Justice.
In Canty v. State, 297 Ga.App. 725, 678 S.E.2d 169 (2009), the Court of Appeals affirmed Alfonzo D. Canty's convictions for criminal attempt to commit armed robbery and aggravated assault. Among other things, the Court of Appeals determined that the trial court did not err by denying Canty's motion to suppress his confession as involuntary and induced by an improper hope of benefit. The record, however, shows that Canty incriminated himself only after being told that he might receive a "shorter term" by doing so. Accordingly, we reverse.
"In a ruling on a motion to suppress, a trial court's findings as to disputed facts will be reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard and ... the trial court's application of the law to undisputed facts is subject to de novo appellate review." (Citation omitted.) State v. Ray, 272 Ga. 450(2), 531 S.E.2d 705 (2000). The underlying crime for which Canty was tried in this case involved the attempted robbery of a Sonic Drive-In Restaurant. On the night of December 14, 2001, Tara Marquez was working as a carhop. While she was working outside, she noticed four males in the dim light, became apprehensive, and ran for the restaurant's rear entrance. The four men pursued, and one of them grabbed her shirt as she escaped into the restaurant. Because of the poor lighting, Marquez could not identify her assailants.
On July 19, 2002, Canty was being held in the Bulloch County jail on unrelated charges involving robbery and damage to property, and he was called in for an interview regarding these charges by Detective Terry Briley.1 Detective Katrina Marson also attended this interview, and, at one point, she asked Canty if he knew anything about the attempted robbery at the Sonic. Canty responded that he believed that the attempted robbery had been committed by Levi and Lenzie Wilkerson. He did not implicate himself. Marson testified that, at this point, she "was encouraging Canty that—from his demeanor that he was involved with the Sonic attempted robbery, that was my thought. So I was encouraging him that if he's involved in this, since he already had pending charges, that we would put them all together."
At the motion to suppress hearing, Marson described her statements to Canty in the following way:
Detective Briley and I explained to Canty that if he or any of the other parties that he'd mentioned were involved in any other things we'd like to put...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lane v. State
...so he could "work this" was no more than an admonition to tell the truth). Moreover, we find Merkeith's reliance on Canty v. State, 286 Ga. 608, 690 S.E.2d 609 (2010), to be misplaced. In Canty, our Supreme Court held that telling a defendant that confessing to the crime could result in a "......
-
The State v. Brown.
...280 Ga.App. at 720(2), 634 S.E.2d 846; Jones v. State, 270 Ga.App. 233, 237(1)(b), 606 S.E.2d 288 (2004); see also Canty v. State, 286 Ga. 608, 610–11, 690 S.E.2d 609 (2010) (holding confession involuntary when accused told that confession could result in a shorter term); State v. Ritter, 2......
-
State v. Chulpaye
...decisions have required the exclusion at trial of statements obtained in violation of the statute. See, e.g., Canty v. State, 286 Ga. 608, 610–611, 690 S.E.2d 609 (2010) ; Foster, 283 Ga. at 488, 660 S.E.2d 521. We must still determine, however, if the exclusion of the fruits of a statement......
-
Dawson v. State
...get any more charges," and similar assurances, constituted an impermissible hope of benefit) (punctuation omitted); Canty v. State , 286 Ga. 608, 610, 690 S.E.2d 609 (2010) (where a detective "told [the accused] much more than simply that his cooperation would be made known to the prosecuti......
-
Criminal Law - Franklin J. Hogue and Laura D. Hogue
...v. State, 190 Ga. App. 353, 378 S.E.2d 917 (1989), and Aikens v. State, 143 Ga. App. 891, 240 S.E.2d 117 (1977)). 46. 286 Ga. 608, 690 S.E.2d 609 (2010). 47. Id. at 608-09, 690 S.E.2d at 610. 48. Id. at 609 & n.1, 690 S.E.2d at 610 & n.1. 49. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Pri......
-
Administrative Law - Martin M. Wilson and Jennifer A. Blackburn
...& Blackburn, supra note 1, at 25-26. 171. Sumter Electric, 286 Ga. at 607, 690 S.E.2d at 608-09 (citation omitted). 172. Id. at 607, 690 S.E.2d at 609. 173. Id. at 608, 690 S.E.2d at 609 (Nahmias, J., concurring). 174. 286 Ga. 811, 692 S.E.2d 343 (2010). 175. Id. at 811-12, 692 S.E.2d at 34......