Johnson v. State
| Decision Date | 17 October 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 29118,29118 |
| Citation | 209 S.E.2d 629,233 Ga. 58 |
| Parties | Larry JOHNSON v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Richard M. Nichols, Macon, for appellant.
Fred M. Hasty, Dist. Atty., Walker P. Johnson, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Macon, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., John W. Dunsmore, Jr., Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
This appeal is from convictions for armed robbery and aggravated assault. One error is enumerated: 'The trial court erred in ruling that the statement of the defendant was freely and voluntarily made after proper warning when the defendant asserts that he requested a lawyer before the statement was made.'
The only issue for decision is the admissibility of an alleged confession made by the appellant during an in-custody interrogation by a law enforcement officer. The trial judge conducted a Jackson-Denno hearing to determine whether the alleged confession should be excluded; the appellant testified that, after being advised of his rights, he requested a lawyer. The law enforcement officer testified that the appellant did not request a lawyer; therefore, whether to admit or exclude the incriminating evidence turns solely on the credibility of these two witnesses. The trial judge resolved this issue in favor of admissibility.
Factual and credibility determinations of this sort made by a trial judge after a suppression hearing must be accepted by appellate courts unless such determinations are clearly erroneous. See Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477, 92 S.Ct. 619, 30 L.Ed.2d 618 (1972), and United States v. Watson, 469 F.2d 362 (5th Cir. 1972).
Upon a review of this record we hold that the decision of the trial judge in favor of admissibility was not clearly erroneous or an abuse of discretion.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gates v. State
...admissibility of a confession will be upheld on appeal. United States v. Watson, 469 F.2d 362, 365 (5th Cir. 1972); Johnson v. State, 233 Ga. 58, 209 S.E.2d 629 (1974); High v. State, supra; Hurt v. State, supra. Moreover, we find in this case that, after viewing the evidence in the light m......
-
Dick v. State
...was resolved by the trial court in favor of admissibility, and we find no error in the trial court's determination. Johnson v. State, 233 Ga. 58, 209 S.E.2d 629 (1974); Amadeo v. State, 243 Ga. 627, 255 S.E.2d 718 (1979); Burney v. State, 244 Ga. 33, 257 S.E.2d 543 (1979); McClesky v. State......
-
Hance v. State
...erroneous. Under these circumstances the determination in favor of admissibility is accepted by the appellate court. Johnson v. State, 233 Ga. 58, 209 S.E.2d 629 (1974); Amadeo v. State, 243 Ga. 627, 255 S.E.2d 718 (1979); Burney v. State, 244 Ga. 33, 257 S.E.2d 543 (1979); McClesky v. Stat......
-
Brooks v. State
...by the trial court must be accepted unless such determinations are clearly erroneous. United States v. Watson, supra; Johnson v. State, 233 Ga. 58, 209 S.E.2d 629 (1974). It is the duty of this court to independently review the evidence to determine whether the state has carried its burden ......