Gardner v. State, No. A03A0862.
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | JOHNSON, Presiding. |
| Citation | 582 S.E.2d 7,261 Ga. App. 10 |
| Decision Date | 16 April 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. A03A0862. |
| Parties | GARDNER v. The STATE. |
582 S.E.2d 7
261 Ga. App. 10
v.
The STATE
No. A03A0862.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
April 16, 2003.
Brandon Lewis, for appellant.
Paul L. Howard, Jr., Dist. Atty., Amira A. Arshad, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
JOHNSON, Presiding Judge.
A grand jury indicted Jerome Gardner for the offenses of aggravated assault, aggravated sodomy, rape, two counts of burglary of a dwelling, and three counts of armed robbery. The jury found him guilty of aggravated assault, both counts of burglary of a dwelling, and two counts of armed robbery. The jury found him not guilty of one count of armed robbery, and the jury was hung as to the aggravated sodomy and rape counts. Gardner appeals, alleging the trial court erred in allowing the state to introduce his custodial statement to police because he had not been read his Miranda rights. Although we find the trial court erred in admitting the statement, we find that the error was harmless because the record establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that it did not contribute to the guilty verdict.
The record shows that a detective secured an arrest warrant on Gardner regarding an unrelated case in Illinois. He served Gardner with the warrant and took him into custody. The detective asked Gardner if he knew why the police were there, and Gardner responded, "yes, the warrant out of Illinois."
Gardner contends the trial court erred in allowing the state to introduce the statement he made while he was in custody without being read his Miranda rights. The Fifth Amendment requires the exclusion of any statement made by an accused during custodial interrogation, unless he has been advised of his rights and has voluntarily waived those rights.1 However, the need for Miranda warnings applies only to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wright v. State, A21A1655
...made during a custodial interrogation, unless he first is advised of and voluntarily waives 5 his Miranda rights. Gardner v. State, 261 Ga.App. 10, 11 (582 S.E.2d 7) (2003); see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444-445, 478-479 (III) (86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694) (1966). "The issue of wh......
-
Wright v. State, A21A1655
...made during a custodial interrogation, unless he first is advised of and voluntarily waives his Miranda rights. Gardner v. State , 261 Ga. App. 10, 11, 582 S.E.2d 7 (2003) ; see 362 Ga.App. 870 Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U. S. 436, 444-445, 478-479 (III), 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).......
-
Phillips v. State, No. S08A1500.
...reasonably likely to elicit a response from appellant that could be used by the prosecution in its case-in-chief? In Gardner v. State, 261 Ga.App. 10, 11, 582 S.E.2d 7 (2003), our Court of Appeals ruled that a trial court erred when it did not suppress a defendant's un-Mirandized statements......
-
Driver v. State, S19A1298
...2830, 77 L.Ed.2d 405 (1983). See also Gray , 304 Ga. at 804-805, 822 S.E.2d 249. Driver relies on the holding of Gardner v. State , 261 Ga. App. 10, 11, 582 S.E.2d 7 (2003), to argue that disclosure of incriminating evidence can constitute improper custodial interrogation, but the defendant......
-
Wright v. State, A21A1655
...made during a custodial interrogation, unless he first is advised of and voluntarily waives 5 his Miranda rights. Gardner v. State, 261 Ga.App. 10, 11 (582 S.E.2d 7) (2003); see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444-445, 478-479 (III) (86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694) (1966). "The issue of wh......
-
Wright v. State, A21A1655
...made during a custodial interrogation, unless he first is advised of and voluntarily waives his Miranda rights. Gardner v. State , 261 Ga. App. 10, 11, 582 S.E.2d 7 (2003) ; see 362 Ga.App. 870 Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U. S. 436, 444-445, 478-479 (III), 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).......
-
Phillips v. State, No. S08A1500.
...reasonably likely to elicit a response from appellant that could be used by the prosecution in its case-in-chief? In Gardner v. State, 261 Ga.App. 10, 11, 582 S.E.2d 7 (2003), our Court of Appeals ruled that a trial court erred when it did not suppress a defendant's un-Mirandized statements......
-
Driver v. State, S19A1298
...2830, 77 L.Ed.2d 405 (1983). See also Gray , 304 Ga. at 804-805, 822 S.E.2d 249. Driver relies on the holding of Gardner v. State , 261 Ga. App. 10, 11, 582 S.E.2d 7 (2003), to argue that disclosure of incriminating evidence can constitute improper custodial interrogation, but the defendant......