Gulley v. State
Decision Date | 02 October 1990 |
Docket Number | No. A90A1092,A90A1092 |
Citation | 197 Ga.App. 131,397 S.E.2d 609 |
Parties | GULLEY v. The STATE. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Fowler, Hein & Daum, Douglas R. Daum, for appellant.
Gerald N. Blaney, Jr., Sol., Jeffrey P. Kwiatkowski, Asst. Sol., for appellee.
Defendant Gulley appeals his convictions of the offenses of driving while under the influence of alcohol and leaving the scene of an accident. Held:
1. Defendant contends that his statement to police should have been excluded from evidence because it was given without his first receiving the warnings required under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694. The statement was given during an interview which defendant attended at a police station. The officer who took defendant's statement testified that defendant attended the interview voluntarily, was not under arrest, was free to leave, and did leave after the interview. The trial court was authorized to conclude that defendant was not taken into custody, and that therefore Miranda did not apply. Leach v. State, 259 Ga. 33, 35(4), 376 S.E.2d 667.
Defendant also contends that his statement was inadmissible because it was induced by a promise of leniency. However, defendant's evidence in this regard was contradicted by that presented by the State, and as we conclude that the trial court's resolution of the resulting factual issue is not clearly erroneous, we hold that the trial court did not err in admitting defendant's statement. Mungin v. State, 183 Ga.App. 290(1), 291, 358 S.E.2d 673.
2. Defendant enumerates as error the admission of evidence of similar crimes, two prior convictions of defendant for driving while under the influence of alcohol. " Johnson v. State, 193 Ga.App. 618, 619, 388 S.E.2d 866. Defendant contends that the State has failed to satisfy the requirement of showing a similarity or connection between the independent crimes and the offense charged. This contention lacks merit. The evidence shows that in each of the similar transactions driving while under the influence of alcohol offenses, as well as in the offense charged, defendant was driving while under the influence of alcohol, the vehicle involved was a sporty car (a Mustang or a Camaro), the time of the offense was past midnight, and that the offenses occurred on wet (foggy or raining) nights. The similar transaction evidence was properly admitted. Johnson v. State, 193 Ga.App. 618, 388 S.E.2d 866, supra; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ellis v. State
...unless clearly erroneous." (Citations omitted.) Connerly v. State, 207 Ga.App. 498, 499, 428 S.E.2d 408 (1993); Gulley v. State, 197 Ga.App. 131, 397 S.E.2d 609 (1990). There was no error in admission of the 7. Appellants claim the trial court erroneously limited their Sixth Amendment right......
-
Guyton v. State, A92A1764
...between the independent crime (or transaction) and the offense charged." (Punctuation and citations omitted.) Gulley v. State, 197 Ga.App. 131, 132(2), 397 S.E.2d 609 (1990). There is no requirement that the previous offense be absolutely identical to the one being prosecuted. Woolfolk v. S......
-
Willoughby v. State
...and that, therefore, Miranda warnings were not required. Leach v. State, 259 Ga. 33, 35(4), 376 S.E.2d 667 (1989); Gulley v. State, 197 Ga.App. 131, 397 S.E.2d 609 (1990). Accordingly, it was not error to refuse to suppress defendant's first two 3. Evidence of gang activity is admissible to......
-
Lankford v. State
...between the independent crime (or transaction) and the offense charged." (Punctuation and citations omitted.) Gulley v. State, 197 Ga.App. 131, 132(2), 397 S.E.2d 609 (1990). In the case at bar, the trial court admitted evidence of three similar transactions. All three of the similar crimes......