Gober v. State
| Decision Date | 31 May 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. S94A0403,S94A0403 |
| Citation | 443 S.E.2d 616,264 Ga. 226 |
| Parties | GOBER v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
L. David Wolfe, L. David Wolfe & Associates, Brian E. Steel, Atlanta, for Gober.
Rebecca A. Keel, Asst. Dist. Atty., Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., Susan V. Boleyn, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Law, Marla-Deen Brooks, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Law, Atlanta, for the State.
Carole E. Wall, Asst. Dist. Atty., Atlanta, for other party representation. SEARS-COLLINS, Justice.
Brian Larone Gober was convicted in Fulton County Superior Court of the felony murder and armed robbery of Michael Dixon. 1 The evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that on the night of November 25, 1992, Gober and co-defendants Harry Shaaggir and Harold Jones were in the parking lot of Shooter's on Old National Highway in Atlanta. When Gober and his companions saw the victim get out of his black 1986 Mercedes with gold trim and into a friend's white car, they discussed the possibility that Dixon had money. When Dixon got out of the white car, Shaaggir shot Dixon four times with a nine millimeter weapon, killing him, and removed Dixon's watch and jewelry. Shaaggir and Gober left in Dixon's car, and Shaaggir drove Gober home. Gober kept the victim's cellular car telephone.
1. The evidence was sufficient to permit a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Gober is guilty of the crimes charged. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.E.2d 560 (1979).
2. Gober made calls on the victim's cellular telephone after the victim's death, and telephone records led to the issuance of a search warrant for Gober's house. After the search team entered the house to execute the warrant, county police lieutenant E.W. Meadows informed Gober that they were looking for a cellular telephone stolen from a murder victim, and informed Gober of his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). At some point before or after reading Gober his rights at his home, Lt. Meadows made the statement that "no lawyer can do you any good at this point."
Initially, Gober denied any knowledge of the telephone or the crime. However, after the search team found a fully automatic Mac 11 nine millimeter assault weapon in Gober's bedroom, the same type of weapon used to kill Dixon, Gober told the officers that the telephone they were looking for was outside in the trunk of Gober's car. Gober consented to the officers' search of the car, where they found the victim's telephone. Still denying his own involvement in the murder, however, Gober told police that Shaaggir and Jones had brought the victim's telephone to Gober's house, and Gober led the police to where Jones and Shaaggir lived. When Gober expressed his willingness to give a written statement at police headquarters, he was taken there, was again informed of his rights, and he signed a written waiver of rights form. After initially giving written statements consistent with what he had told the police at his home, Gober admitted to his involvement in the crimes, and signed a written statement to that effect.
(a) Gober now contends that he was placed under arrest when the police officers entered his house to execute the search warrant, and that the arrest was illegal due to a lack of either an arrest warrant or probable cause to arrest. While Gober does not deny that he was informed of his Miranda rights at that time, Gober argues that Lt. Meadows' statement regarding the efficacy of counsel constituted "flagrant official misconduct" rendering all statements made following his "illegal arrest" inadmissible as evidence, pursuant to Olson v. State, 166 Ga.App. 104, 107(3), 303 S.E.2d 309 (1983) (). We find no merit to this contention because we find that there was no illegal arrest.
The officers entered Gober's home pursuant to a warrant, founded on probable cause, to search the premises for the murder victim's cellular telephone. "[A] warrant to search for contraband founded on probable cause implicitly carries with it the limited authority to detain the occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted." Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 705, 101 S.Ct. 2587, 2595, 69 L.Ed.2d 340 (1981); see also OCGA § 17-5-28.
In the execution of the search warrant, the officer executing the same may reasonably detain or search any person in the place at the time: (1) To protect himself from attack; or (2) To prevent the disposal or concealment of any instruments, articles, or things particularly described in the search warrant.
When a gun of the same type as the murder weapon was found in Gober's bedroom, taken in concert with the knowledge that Gober had used the murder victim's telephone after the victim's death, probable cause arose to arrest Gober. Thus, any subsequent detention was justified by the existence of probable cause to arrest, and, as Gober had been given his Miranda warnings and had waived the rights extant in those warnings, the trial court properly held that any voluntary statements thereafter made by Gober were admissible.
(b) Gober also contends that Lt. Meadows' statement constituted coercive interrogation which invalidated Gober's waiver of rights and rendered Gober's subsequent statements involuntary. We disagree.
(Citations omitted.) Lee v. State, 154 Ga.App. 562, 563, 269 S.E.2d 65 (19...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lee v. State
...determinations and credibility relating to the admissibility of a confession will be upheld on appeal.'" [Cit.] Gober v. State, 264 Ga. 226, 228(2)(b), 443 S.E.2d 616 (1994). Lee was 19 years old, in police custody only a short time, not under the influence of drugs or alcohol, not subjecte......
-
Pledger v. State
...a proper search is conducted.' Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 705, 101 S.Ct. 2587, 69 L.Ed.2d 340 (1981)." Gober v. State, 264 Ga. 226, 227(2)(a), 443 S.E.2d 616 (1994); see also OCGA § 17-5-28. Here, however, the officers had no warrant. Further, we cannot sustain the detention under a......
-
Gulley v. State
...to factual determinations and credibility relating to the admissibility of a confession will be upheld on appeal.'" Gober v. State, 264 Ga. 226(2)(b), 443 S.E.2d 616 (1994), quoting Lee v. State, 154 Ga.App. 562, 563, 269 S.E.2d 65 (1980). The police discovered one of Gulley's fingerprints ......
-
Hyman v. State
...773(2)(a), 482 S.E.2d 288 (1997). Any misstatement did not relate to Hyman's defense and was not substantive. See Gober v. State, 264 Ga. 226, 229(4), 443 S.E.2d 616 (1994). Furthermore, the trial court correctly used the word "matter" when it read the indictment to the jury. See Arnold v. ......