Lawton v. State
| Decision Date | 07 June 1993 |
| Citation | 429 S.E.2d 921,263 Ga. 168 |
| Parties | LAWTON v. STATE. S93A0349. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Richard O. Ward, Augusta, for Lawton.
Michael C. Eubanks, Dist. Atty., Augusta, Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., Atlanta, Daniel J. Craig, Dist. Atty., J. Wade Padgett, Asst. Dist. Atty., Augusta, for the State.
Matthew P. Stone, Staff Atty. Dept. of Law, Atlanta.
The jury returned verdicts of guilty but mentally ill to a five- count indictment charging appellant with the murders of two employees of an Augusta sporting goods store, the kidnapping of the two victims, armed robbery, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. 1 In his lone enumeration of error, appellant contends the trial court erred when it admitted into evidence statements appellant made while in custody.
1. The State presented evidence that each of the two victims, who were found at approximately 2:00 p.m., died from a gunshot to her head, fired while she lay face-down on the floor of the store's warehouse area. The store's front door was locked, the lights were off, the backdoor security bar was not in place, and $61 was missing from the cash register. The last sales transaction recorded on the cash register was at 1:15 p.m., and was for, among other things, a sweatsuit and a pair of shoes. A United Parcel Service employee identified appellant as the store's only customer when he made a delivery to the store at 1:10 p.m., and the man he later saw counting a quarter-inch-thick stack of cash. An employee of another store in the shopping area testified he noticed the lights of the sporting goods store were off at 1:22 p.m. Several employees of a nearby motel identified appellant as the man they saw the afternoon of the murders carrying what appeared to be shoeboxes in plastic bags with the name of the sporting goods store imprinted on them. One motel employee and her husband, who noticed appellant was wearing blue jeans underneath a jogging suit, gave appellant a ride from the motel to his home, for which he paid them $5. Two unspent .32 caliber PMC bullets, a brand seldom seen by the firearms expert, were found in a shed at appellant's home, and identified by the expert as being identical to the bullet fragments removed from the victims' bodies. After his arrest, appellant made a statement in which he admitted he had robbed the store at gunpoint, had one of the victims lock the store's front door, and forced the two women to go from the showroom to the storage area where he shot them. The evidence was sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to conclude that appellant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes charged. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
2. Appellant contends the trial court erred when it determined, after a hearing held pursuant to Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964), that appellant's custodial statements were freely and voluntarily given after he had made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).
At the hearing, the three police officers who questioned appellant testified that appellant was informed of his Miranda rights and that the ranking officer explained each right in detail because he knew that appellant had attended special education classes. The officers testified that appellant stated he understood his rights, did not appear under the influence of alcohol or drugs, was conversant, and had no trouble understanding them. Appellant signed a waiver of rights form, and told the officers that he had seen another person rob the store and shoot the women. The alleged perpetrator had then given appellant a ride home. After deciding to tape record appellant's statement, the officers re-advised appellant of his Miranda rights on tape, and appellant repeated his story. The officers stopped the tape, told appellant they did not believe him, re-started the tape and re-informed him of his Miranda rights, at which point appellant admitted he had lied and stated that he had robbed the store and shot the women to prevent future identification of him. While exiting the investigation center to show officers where he had disposed of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Raulerson v. State
...that he was shown at trial to have below normal intelligence. White v. State, 266 Ga. 134(2), 465 S.E.2d 277 (1996); Lawton v. State, 263 Ga. 168(2), 429 S.E.2d 921 (1993). Raulerson argues that his confession was the product of intimidation because one of the interrogating officers purport......
-
Rowland v. State
...(1994); Smith v. State, 263 Ga. 363 n. 1, 434 S.E.2d 465 (1993); Terry v. State, 263 Ga. 294, 430 S.E.2d 731 (1993); Lawton v. State, 263 Ga. 168 n. 1, 429 S.E.2d 921 (1993); Williams v. State, 210 Ga.App. 437, 436 S.E.2d 550 (1993); Morales v. State, 210 Ga.App. 414, 436 S.E.2d 528 (1993).......
-
Ledford v. State
...waiver of his Miranda rights. These findings are not clearly erroneous, and will not be disturbed by this court. Lawton v. State, 263 Ga. 168, 429 S.E.2d 921 (1993); Carter v. State, 257 Ga. 510(3), 361 S.E.2d 175 9. During the state's presentation of its case, a spectator spoke to a juror.......
-
Pickren v. State
...determinations and credibility relating to the admissibility of a confession will be upheld on appeal.' [Cit.]" Lawton v. State, 263 Ga. 168, 171, 429 S.E.2d 921 (1993). The GBI agent testified that, while appellant indicated he had been drinking earlier on the day of the shooting, the agen......
-
Criminal Law - Frank C. Mills, Iii
...infra notes 605-11 and accompanying text. 3. For continuity and future reference. The author included in this year's survey all cases from 263 Ga. 168,429 S.E.2d 921 (June 7,1993) through 264 Ga. 300, 443 S.E.2d 836 (May 31, 1994) and from 208 Ga. App. 787, 432 S.E.2d 808 (April 15, 1993) t......