Grant v. State, 59069
| Decision Date | 29 May 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 59069,59069 |
| Citation | 154 Ga.App. 758,270 S.E.2d 42 |
| Parties | GRANT v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Barry R. Chapman, Valdosta, for appellant.
H. Lamar Cole, Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Eddie Grant, an inmate at Lowndes Correctional Institution, was convicted of possession of a deadly weapon while in confinement. He brings this appeal, enumerating two errors, Held:
Our disposition of the first enumeration of error is conclusive of this appeal. The evidence shows that a shakedown inspection of inmate lockers exposed a piece of steel fashioned into a knife in Grant's locker. The following day Grant was placed before a disciplinary board accused of wrongfully possessing contraband (a knife). He was asked, without benefit of any warning as to potential incrimination, whether he wished to plead guilty or not guilty, to which question Grant replied he was "guilty." Subsequently, this "plea" was admitted in the form of a confession, but over objection, at a trial for the offense of possession of a deadly weapon by a prisoner. At that trial Grant entered a plea of not guilty.
Grant contends that the "plea of guilty" at the disciplinary hearing was inadmissible at the subsequent criminal trial in the absence of a Miranda warning at the disciplinary hearing.
We agree and reverse. A disciplinary hearing while incarcerated in a state correctional institution is a custodial hearing which requires an appropriate warning of the right against self-incrimination before any statements made are admissible against the speaker in a subsequent criminal proceeding for those same criminal acts (in the absence of waiver).
In Biddy v. State, 127 Ga.App. 212, 193 S.E.2d 31, this court held that questioning an inmate, whether by peace officers or prison officials, where the thrust and purpose of the interrogation relates to a suspected crime for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Wyngaard
...of these statements almost certainly resulted in the verdict of guilty, defendant's conviction should be reversed. Carr, supra; Grant, supra. I would 1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1......
-
State v. Conley
...(9th Cir.1974), rev'd on other grounds, Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 96 S.Ct. 1551, 47 L.Ed.2d 810 (1976); Grant v. State, 154 Ga.App. 758, 270 S.E.2d 42, 43 (1980); State v. Harris, 176 Mont. 70, 576 P.2d 257, 258 (1978). Other courts have reached the same result through a different......
-
Pruitt v. State
...rights were not read to appellant prior to his confession, the trial court erred in admitting it at trial. See Grant v. State, 154 Ga.App. 758, 270 S.E.2d 42 (1980) (a plea of guilty at a disciplinary hearing was held inadmissible at a subsequent criminal trial in the absence of Miranda war......
-
Hubbard v. State
...was not reinforced at the time the incriminating statement was made.) Accordingly, the statement was not admissible. Grant v. State, 154 Ga.App. 758, 270 S.E.2d 42. Compare Watson v. State, 227 Ga. 698, 699(1), 182 S.E.2d The State contends defendant "opened the door" to the incriminating s......