Jackson v. State

• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: HINES, Justice.
• Citation: Jackson v. State, 272 Ga. 191, 528 S.E.2d 232 (Ga. 2000)
• Decision Date: 13 March 2000
• Docket Number: No. S99A1283.,S99A1283.
• Parties: JACKSON v. The STATE.

528 S.E.2d 232

272 Ga. 191

JACKSON v. The STATE.

No. S99A1283.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

March 13, 2000.

Lloyd W. Walker, Fayetteville, for appellant.

William T. McBroom III, District Attorney, Randall K. Coggin, Assistant District Attorney, Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, Paula K. Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Adam M. Hames, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

HINES, Justice.

Dequentin Bernard Jackson was convicted of malice murder, feticide, armed robbery, aggravated battery, and participation in criminal gang activity by a person under 18 years of age, in connection with the death of Wendy Hearn. For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part and vacate in part. ¹

Hearn was killed by a gunshot wound to the head while working at a dry cleaning store. She was eight months pregnant and her unborn child also died as a result of the shooting. There was a pair of blood splattered shorts hanging by the cash register that had Jackson's name and telephone number on the attached ticket. Investigators questioned Jackson, then 14 years of age, in the presence of his uncle at his grandfather's house, where Jackson resided. The uncle gave his consent to a search of the house, except for the grandfather's bedroom; the grandfather was not present. Jackson gave a written statement explaining that he had been to the cleaners to retrieve the shorts, but they were not ready yet. At an investigator's request, Jackson agreed to have his hands wiped for a gunshot residue test and stated that he had been target practicing earlier. The test was to be done at the crime scene and an officer accompanied Jackson up the stairs to get his shoes. The officer advised him to make sure everything he told them was the truth, which was repeated by lead investigator Major Jordan. Jackson then stated that he was at the cleaners with "a dude named Jack," and "I did it with a dude named Jack."

Jackson's grandfather had just arrived at the house and came up to the officers and Jackson at this time. The police allowed the grandfather to have a short private conversation with Jackson, and his grandfather advised him to tell the truth. Jackson repeated that he was involved, but that Jack was the shooter. When Jordan stated that this version would not make sense if Jackson had gunpowder residue on his hands, Jackson confessed to being the shooter, but stated that Jack had the gun. Jackson was taken to the crime scene where the gunpowder test was conducted. While there Jackson summoned Jordan inside and told him where in his grandfather's house the police could find the murder weapon and robbery proceeds.

Later, at the sheriff's office, Jackson was advised of his Miranda rights and interviewed in the presence of his grandfather. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). He admitted that he went to the cleaners alone to rob it, and that he fired the bullet which killed Hearn and resulted in the death of her unborn child. He also told the officers that he did this to elevate his ranking in his street gang. The videotape of this interview was shown at trial.

1. Jackson contends the evidence was insufficient to convict him of participation in criminal gang activity. The jury was charged on former OCGA § 16-15-4(b)(1), which was then applicable. Under that Code section, the State was required to show that Jackson committed a felony "for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with any criminal street gang with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in any criminal conduct by gang members...." Jackson's own statement at the sheriff's office allowed the jury to infer that the robbery and killing of Hearn were undertaken in association with his participation in a criminal street gang, for the purpose of furthering his own rank and influence within the gang, and to perpetuate the gang and its rank structure. The evidence was sufficient to enable a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Jackson was guilty of all crimes of which he was convicted. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).

2. Jackson was sentenced for both malice murder and aggravated battery. Although there is no merger of the two crimes as a matter of law, the aggravated battery conviction may merge into the malice murder conviction as a matter of fact. Malcolm v. State, 263 Ga. 369, 372-374(5), 434 S.E.2d 479 (1993). The indictment alleged that Jackson committed aggravated battery in that he "did maliciously cause bodily harm to ... Hearn, by seriously disfiguring her body by shooting her in the forehead with a gun...." Review of the record shows that the evidence used to prove that Jackson committed aggravated battery is the same as that used to prove he committed malice murder. Therefore, the aggravated battery merged into the malice murder as a matter of fact, and the separate judgment of conviction and sentence for the aggravated battery must be vacated. See Fitzpatrick v. State, 268 Ga. 423, 424(1), 489 S.E.2d 840 (1997).

3. The court refused to suppress the statements that Jackson made to the sheriff's deputies before he was taken to the sheriff's office. Jackson contends that by the time he made these statements, he had become a suspect, was in custody and being interrogated, and that he should have been informed of his Miranda rights. On appeal, the issue is whether the trial court was clearly erroneous in its factual findings regarding the admissibility of the statements. Dixon v. State, 267 Ga. 136, 139(3), 475 S.E.2d 633 (1996).

Whether Jackson was a suspect is not the controlling issue. Hodges v. State, 265 Ga. 870, 872(2), 463 S.E.2d 16 (1995). The first proper inquiry is whether he was in custody for purposes of Miranda. Id. Accord Vaughn v. State, 261 Ga. 686, 687(2), 410 S.E.2d 108 (1991).

There are four statements at issue. The first was Jackson's admission to involvement with "Jack," made at the top of the stairs. Jordan testified that he originally believed Jackson was too calm to have just committed the murder and that until Jackson stated that he was involved, Jordan did not think he was. Up to that time, all contact between the sheriff's deputies and Jackson was by consent. A reasonable person in Jackson's position, having just confessed to involvement in a crime in the presence of law enforcement officers would, from that time forward, perceive himself to be in custody, and expect that his future freedom of action would be significantly curtailed. See Hodges, supra; Hardeman v. State, 252 Ga. 286, 288(1), 313 S.E.2d 95 (1984). Jordan testified that he considered Jackson to be in custody after Jackson first stated that he was involved in the crime, but not before, and the trial court did not err in finding that Jackson was not in custody when he made the first statement. The question is whether, while in custody, Jackson made any statements in response to an interrogation. Walton v. State, 267 Ga. 713, 717(4), 482 S.E.2d 330 (1997).²

The second statement was made after Jackson was permitted to be alone with his grandfather, and it was in response to that discussion that he again admitted involvement with "Jack." Such a statement in response to a family member's question or encouragement is not a violation of Mira...