Jefferson v. State, 51024
| Decision Date | 07 October 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 51024,No. 2,51024,2 |
| Citation | 136 Ga.App. 63,220 S.E.2d 71 |
| Parties | Wilbur JEFFERSON v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Saul, Blount & Avrett, Rercy J. Blount, Augusta, for appellant.
Richard E. Allen, Dist Atty., Richard L. Powell, Asst. Dist. Atty., Augusta, for appellee.
The defendant was indicted, tried, and convicted on four counts of burglary and one count of theft by receiving stolen property. He appeals the judgment of conviction.
The evidence shows that appellant was stopped by a policeman on January 6, 1974, for running a stop sign. Appellant did not have a driver's license. He told the officer his license was at his brother's house, and the officer followed him to the address given to see the license. When they arrived at the location, appellant got out of his vehicle, ran around the corner of a building, jumped a fence, and got away. The car door of appellant's car was left open and the keys were left in the ignition.
The officer testified that the car was blocking a street which he believed to be city property; therefore, he impounded the car. There was conflicting testimony as to whether the street was public or part of an apartment complex.
After the car was impounded, it was inventoried, and a tape player was removed for safekeeping. A check of the serial number on the tape player revealed it to be stolen.
On March 24, 1974, appellant was arrested for the above traffic violation. The next morning, March 25, he was interviewed by an officer and admitted knowingly receiving the stolen tape player. Appellant was also questioned respecting an alleged robbery and attempted rape unconnected with the present offenses. After this interview, the officers proceeded to appellant's house to determine appellant's whereabouts on the night of the alleged robbery and attempted rape.
Appellant's wife gave the officers permission to search for clothes similar to those worn during the offenses under investigation. While looking for these clothes, the officers noted several tape players, speakers, etc., in one room. One officer remarked that this equipment might be stolen and picked up a turntable to copy the serial number. Appellant's wife offered no verbal objection until after the serial number was checked, and one officer testified she verbally consented to an inspection of the turntable.
The officers determined that the turntable had been reported stolen in a burglary. One of the officers told appellant that they had discovered the stolen turntable and that they would get a search warrant and go back out to appellant's house and pick up all the other items and check to seek if they were stolen. The officer said, 'This will possibly involve your wife . . . the baby-the baby's out there.' Appellant then said, 'Well, don't get my wife involved in it; I'll cooperate with you-with ya'll.' Appellant then signed a consent to search from and accompanied the officers to his home. A search revealed numerous items. Appellant identified each item and the house from which it was taken.
The next day, March 26, the appellant signed a written statement admitting participation in the crimes charged. Before signing the statement, appellant was given his Miranda rights and signed a form waiving said rights.
On May 13, 1974, the appellant was taken from the county jail to the city barracks, where he was confronted by two persons allegedly involved in the crimes charged. Each of the three accused each other of being involved in the burglaries.
1. Appellant alleges error in the court's admitting the tape player, recovered from appellant's car, into evidence. He argues that the tape player was the result of an unlawful search and seizure and a violation of appellant's constitutional rights. The facts show that appellant made a free choice to leave his car on the street. 'By this voluntary election, he lost his constitutional protection against the search and seizure of his car.' Whitlock v. State, 124 Ga.App. 599, 602, 185 S.E.2d 90, 93.
2. Appellant urges that the permission to search was illegally obtained, and all items seized thereunder were the result of an illegal search and seizure. He contends that the consent was induced by the officers through a threat to involve appellant's wife and child. Where the consent to search is not freely given then the search will not be upheld. Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543, 88 S.Ct. 1788, 20 L.Ed.2d 797.
An examination of the conversation between the officers and appellant shows that the officers told appellant they were going to get a search warrant and pick up the other items at his house. Appellant was told that this might involve...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Caldwell v. State
...of limitations.' This rule extends back as far as McLane v. State, 4 Ga. 335, 341, and was reaffirmed as recently as Jefferson v. State, 136 Ga.App. 63, 66, 220 S.E.2d 71. See the numerous citations under catchword 'Time,' Code Ann. § 27-701, and those in Georgia Digest, Indictment & Inform......
-
Duncan v. State
...Cir. 1973); United States v. Edwards, 441 F.2d 749 (5th Cir. 1971); Wade v. Warden, 278 F.Supp. 904 (D.Md.1968); Jefferson v. State, 136 Ga.App. 63, 220 S.E.2d 71 (1975); Whitlock v. State, 124 Ga.App. 599, 185 S.E.2d 90 (1971); People v. Harper, 26 Ill.2d 85, 185 N.E.2d 865 (1962), cert. d......
-
Hatcher v. State, 52645
...or coercion, express or implied, is a question of fact to be determined from the totality of all the circumstances." Jefferson v. State, 136 Ga.App. 63, 220 S.E.2d 71; Flournoy v. State, 131 Ga.App. 171, 205 S.E.2d 473. Schneckloth and the other consent cases are dealing with a consent to s......
-
Miller v. State
...1 Wade v. State, 147 Ga.App. 511, 249 S.E.2d 323 (1978); Decker v. State, 139 Ga.App. 707, 229 S.E.2d 520 (1976); Jefferson v. State, 136 Ga.App. 63, 220 S.E.2d 71 (1975). While in this case there was conflicting evidence as to whether the events in question occurred in May 1991 or in May 1......