Maggard v. State
| Decision Date | 22 June 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 46520,46520 |
| Citation | 259 Ga. 291,380 S.E.2d 259 |
| Parties | MAGGARD v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Harlan M. Starr, Bates, Kelehear & Starr, Dalton, for Jimmy Ray Maggard.
Jack O. Partain III, Dist. Atty., Dalton, Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., C.A. Benjamin Woolf, for the State.
Jimmy Ray Maggard makes three enumerations of error in this appeal of his conviction for murder. 1 He argues (1) that the confessions should have been suppressed as fruit of an illegal arrest; (2) that the evidence regarding his conviction for manslaughter in Tennessee should not have been admitted as a "similar crime"; and (3) that the evidence was insufficient to prove malice murder. We find no error in the proceedings below and affirm the conviction.
1. Maggard contends the trial court erred in refusing to suppress his statement arguing that he made the statement while under an illegal arrest and that the statement was not free and voluntary. Looking first at the question of the arrest, we review pertinent testimony relating events leading to the arrest.
Chief Deputy Sheriff Malleuf testified that Sgt. Jacks had seen a car apparently abandoned in a grassy area leading down a short embankment near the driveway to the Floyd County jail. Later when Sgt. Jacks saw the car with the interior lights on, he radioed the Chief Deputy saying, "Somebody's in that car." The Chief Deputy further testified that when he arrived, Sgt. Jacks was going down toward a high grassy area with his hand on his gun and that Maggard came out of the tall grass with his hands up.
The officers searched Maggard, and after carrying him into the jail, another officer searched some travel bags in Maggard's possession finding a billfold containing another person's identification. Maggard claimed the billfold belonged to a friend of his. Later investigation revealed it belonged to Maggard's employer who was also the owner of the automobile.
The officers placed Maggard under arrest for illegal entering of an automobile and gave him Miranda warnings. The record implies that the discovery of the identity of the owner of the automobile and billfold occurred after the arrest was made.
Within some thirty or forty minutes, the Chief Deputy interviewed Maggard who told him of the murder in Whitfield County as well as other murders he had committed.
Whether the arrest lacked probable cause so as to render inadmissible the statement given forms the issue here. In summary, the facts known by the officers at the time of the arrest were these. A car had stopped in an unusual location with no interior lights on. Later the interior lights of the car were on. Upon investigation, an officer found the defendant in tall grass near the car in possession of bags containing among other things identification belonging to a person other than the defendant.
The state bears the burden of demonstrating the admissibility of the confession. State v. Harris, 256 Ga. 24, 343 S.E.2d 483 (1986). Admissibility may be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. High v. State, 233 Ga. 153, 210 S.E.2d 673 (1974); Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477, 92 S.Ct. 619, 30 L.Ed.2d 618 (1972). Applying the admittedly scanty facts to the test of whether they are sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the accused had committed or was committing an offense, Durden v. State, 250 Ga. 325, 297 S.E.2d 237 (1982), we hold that the trial court's determination was not clearly erroneous and that the confession was properly admitted into evidence.
Additionally, the trial court's conclusion that Maggard made his statement freely and voluntarily is not clearly erroneous and must therefore be accepted by this court. Mullinax v. State, 255 Ga. 442, 339 S.E.2d 704 (1986).
2. Next, Maggard contends that it was improper to admit the "similar crime" evidence regarding his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Raulerson v. State
...similarities between two incidents, particularly where the independent crime is admissible to show bent of mind. Maggard v. State, 259 Ga. 291, 293(2), 380 S.E.2d 259 (1989). The State made each of the required showings under Williams v. State, supra, 261 Ga. at 640, 409 S.E.2d 649; therefo......
-
Bright v. State
...a preponderance of the evidence. Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477, 489, 92 S.Ct. 619, 626-627, 30 L.Ed.2d 618 (1972); Maggard v. State, 259 Ga. 291, 292, 380 S.E.2d 259 (1989). The trial court's findings of fact and credibility after a Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 9......
-
Pitts v. State, S89P0388
...statements, evidence of two similar crimes was properly admitted for the purpose of tending to prove intent. Maggard v. State, 259 Ga. 291(2), 380 S.E.2d 259 (1989); Frazier v. State, 257 Ga. 690(16), 362 S.E.2d 351 6. Pitts contends it was error to admit in evidence statements given by him......
-
Burnham v. State
...Wilson, 179 Ga.App. 334, 346 S.E.2d 111 (1986); Davis v. State, 164 Ga.App. 312, 295 S.E.2d 131 (1982). See also Maggard v. State, 259 Ga. 291, 292(1), 380 S.E.2d 259 (1989). If an eyewitness description is required in such instances, it will often be impossible to establish probable cause ......