Gainer v. State
Decision Date | 12 January 1978 |
Docket Number | No. 54887,No. 1,54887,1 |
Citation | 242 S.E.2d 286,144 Ga.App. 703 |
Parties | Wallace GAINER v. The STATE |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Spivey & Carlton, Robert S. Reeves, Swainsboro, for appellant.
H. Reginald Thompson, Dist. Atty., Charles W. Cook, Asst. Dist. Atty., Swainsboro, for appellee.
Appellant was indicted for the murder of his wife and convicted of involuntary manslaughter. Apparently, appellant and his wife had been having some domestic difficulties. The sum and substance of the case, as indicated by the confession of appellant, was that the deceased struck his hand while he was holding a pistol and that the weapon went off accidentally. Appellant then took his wife to the hospital where she died.
The only enumeration of error is the admission into evidence of the confession of the accused.
The sheriff first saw the appellant at the hospital. He testified that upon his arrival at the hospital he saw the appellant sitting at the nurses' station of the emergency room. The nurse told him that appellant had shot his wife. The sheriff then went over to appellant and asked him what had happened, and appellant then told the sheriff that he had shot his wife. At that time appellant had not been advised of his constitutional rights. The sheriff immediately told appellant not to say anything else and that he was going to have to hold him for investigation of murder. The next day, at the jail, the sheriff advised him of his constitutional rights and obtained the confession. The defense presented no evidence and relied on arguments to the jury based on the defense of accident. A Jackson v. Denno hearing was held outside the presence of the jury to determine the admissibility of the confession.
1. Appellant's first contention is that the sheriff's initial inquiry as to what happened without advising appellant of his Miranda rights was improper and tainted the subsequent confession. We hold that such inquiry did not constitute an interrogation and that the sheriff had the right and the duty to make an on-the-scene investigation. At the time of the inquiry appellant was not in custody. In Brackins v. State, 139 Ga.App. 94, 227 S.E.2d 891, the court held: Id. at 95, 227 S.E.2d at 892. Here, as in Brackins, Id. at p. 95, 227 S.E.2d at p. 892. See also Jackson v. State, 143 Ga.App. 734, 735, 240 S.E.2d 180, 181 which states:
See also Westley v. State, 143 Ga.App. 344, 345, 238 S.E.2d 701, holding: "We find no error. Under similar facts, the court in Jones v. State, 127 Ga.App. 137, 193 S.E.2d 38 (1972), held that the investigating officer's question, 'Where do you stay?', directed to the defendant, was a mere threshold inquiry, and a reasonable one. See, also, Boorstine v. State, 126 Ga.App. 90(1), 190 S.E.2d 83 (1972). Similarly, in Shy v. State, 234 Ga. 816, 218 S.E.2d 599 (1975), wherein a defendant in custody was asked, prior to being given Miranda warnings, what had happened, he replied: ' "I caught my wife and that son of a bitch and I shot him ".' Shy, supra, at p. 817, 218 S.E.2d (599) at p. 602. The court observed that the Miranda warnings are not required in ' "general on-the-scene investigation",' and that '(t)he police on the scene of a crime are likely to detain temporarily anyone who tries to leave before a preliminary investigation.' Shy, supra, at p. 820, 218 S.E.2d (599) at p. 603. See Allen v. United States, 129 U.S.App.D.C. 61, 390 F.2d 476 (1968); Arnold v. United States, 382 F.2d 4 (9th Cir. 1967). The Supreme Court in the Shy case concluded:
" Id. at 345-6, 238 S.E.2d at 702.
See also Dasher v. State, 140 Ga.App. 517(1), 231 S.E.2d 510; Davis v. State, 135 Ga.App. 584(5), 218 S.E.2d 297; Wilburn v. State, 230 Ga. 675(2), 198 S.E.2d 857.
2. Appellant contends further that the confession was inadmissible because prior to the questioning he was not advised of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Com. v. Chung
...in this context that, at the very least, waiver of the Miranda rights must be submitted to the jury. See, e. g., Gainer v. State, 144 Ga.App. 703, 242 S.E.2d 286 (1978); State v. Pease, 129 Vt. 70, 271 A.2d 835 (1970). We do not doubt that evidence bearing on whether warnings were given and......
-
Bailey v. State
...Bailey and began to question him, Bailey was not suspected of any crime most certainly not of manslaughter. Compare Gainer v. State, 144 Ga.App. 703, 242 S.E.2d 286 (1978). The officer sought general information concerning the noise he had heard and was following up on the directive to inve......
-
Choat v. State, A00A1604.
...charges of kidnapping and false imprisonment, as demonstrated by his waiver of rights form. Choat relies on Gainer v. State, 144 Ga.App. 703, 242 S.E.2d 286 (1978); that decision, however, does not deal with the dismissal of an indictment but with an attempt to suppress a confession on the ......
-
Mungin v. State
...a circumstance to be taken into consideration by the jury in weighing such statements under OCGA § 24-3-53. See Gainer v. State, 144 Ga.App. 703(2), 242 S.E.2d 286 (1978). Appellant's assertion, without citation of authority or argument, that the length of his interrogation (totaling approx......