Jones v. State, A17A1204
| Decision Date | 28 February 2018 |
| Docket Number | A17A1204 |
| Citation | 811 S.E.2d 496 |
| Parties | JONES v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Nancy Bernice Miller, Victoria Lynn Novak, for Appellant.
Robert Bradford Bickerstaff II, Jennifer Elizabeth Dunlap, Julia Anne Fessenden Slater, Matthew Jon Landreau, for Appellee.
Following a jury trial, Arthur Jones was convicted of burglary1 and armed robbery2 and acquitted on a count of possessing a firearm during the commission of a felony.3 He appeals from the partial denial of his motion for new trial,4 contending that (1) the trial court erred by admitting inculpatory statements he made during a police interview because they were not voluntary, (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and (3) the trial court failed to re-sentence him following his successful merger argument at the motion for new trial. In light of the promises made by the interviewing detective creating a hope that Jones would not be charged if he confessed, we agree and reverse.
The record shows that police received information that Jones, a 14-year-old boy, was involved in a burglary at Mycreatisha Davis’s apartment. Detectives went to Jones’s residence to discuss the alleged burglary and asked his mother if they could speak to Jones. His mother agreed and allowed the detectives to go to Jones’s upstairs bedroom to speak to him. A detective explained to Jones that they were there to talk about some recent burglaries, and Jones handed her some videos that had been stolen from Davis. The detective also observed in plain view two cell phones and asked the mother about them; Jones’s mother told the detective she did not know where one of them came from. At that point, the detectives determined that Jones would be charged with the burglary, and they handcuffed Jones and told him and his mother that they would be bringing him downtown for further questioning. Police told the mother she could come to the police station, and the mother replied that she would meet them there shortly after "tak[ing] care of a few things."
The mother arrived in the police station lobby five or ten minutes after police had arrived with Jones, and police explained that they were interviewing Jones and he was going to be charged with burglary. The mother did not ask to be present, and police did not inform her that she could be present.
During the ensuing interview, which lasted approximately 30 minutes, Jones was Mirandized5 and admitted being the lookout in the Davis burglary and another burglary in Alabama. The detective asked Jones about other burglaries in the same apartment complex, but he denied involvement in any other burglaries. Jones was then released to his mother.
After police obtained additional information linking Jones to the crimes in this case—an armed robbery and burglary in Stephanie
Taylor’s apartment while her two young children were with a babysitter—they went back to Jones’s residence to speak with him again. Jones’s mother was not home, so police called her at work, and she gave them permission to talk to Jones.
During the second interview, Jones initially denied involvement in the Taylor armed robbery and burglary, but the interviewing detective pressed him because she believed he was lying based on allegations from other witnesses. Jones again admitted involvement in the Davis burglary, but remained evasive about other burglaries in the area. The interview escalated, and the detective became audibly frustrated, lecturing Jones:
Within one minute after this exchange, Jones admitted his involvement in the burglary and armed robbery at issue in this case, despite having already denied it earlier in this interview and in the prior interview.
Jones was indicted for armed robbery, burglary, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony.7 Jones moved to suppress his statements to police, and following a Jackson-Denno8 hearing, the trial court ruled that his statements were voluntary. At trial, after hearing the evidence, including redacted recordings of the interviews, the jury returned a guilty verdict on all counts except for the firearm charge, and the court sentenced Jones to 15 years with 10 to serve in prison.9 Jones moved for a new trial, challenging his sentence on merger grounds, the admissibility of the confession, and the efficacy of his trial counsel, and the trial court granted the motion as to merger and otherwise denied the motion. Jones now appeals.
1. Jones contends that the trial court erred by admitting his incriminating statements to police because they were induced by the hope of a lighter punishment.10 Based on the record before us, we agree.
Here, Jones was fourteen years old and in the ninth grade at the time of the interviews. Although police asked his mother for permission to interview him, she was not present during the interviews, nor was any other family member or an attorney. Jones was aware that he was going to be charged for the Davis burglary and that police wanted to know about any other burglaries he was involved in, but no formal charges had been filed. He had been handcuffed for his transportation to the police station, but the interview was conducted in an informal, cubicle setting.
Most notable here was the method used during the interrogation, a Riley factor.
Former OCGA § 24–3–50, now the nearly-identical OCGA § 24–8–824, provided at the time of [Jones’s trial] that "to make a confession admissible, it must have been made voluntarily, without being induced by another by the slightest hope of benefit or remotest fear of injury. ... It has long been understood that "slightest hope of benefit" refers to promises related to reduced criminal punishment—a shorter sentence, lesser charges, or no charges at all .14
In the second interview, as noted above, the tone of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cmty. & S. Bank v. First Bank of Dalton
...times").Nor do we agree with Dalton and Pickens Bank that the parties’ conduct prior to default constitutes a special equity supporting a 811 S.E.2d 496deviation from the general rule. Although the two loans may have been treated differently with respect to payments made on the loans,9 once......