Martin v. State

• Decision Date: 17 January 1995
• Docket Number: No. S94A1214,S94A1214
• Citation: Martin v. State, 452 S.E.2d 95, 264 Ga. 826 (Ga. 1995)
• Parties: MARTIN v. The STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Page 95

452 S.E.2d 95

264 Ga. 826

MARTIN v.The STATE.

No. S94A1214.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Jan. 17, 1995.

Elizabeth Lane, Macon, for Martin.

Charles H. Weston, Dist. Atty., Macon, Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., Atlanta, Thomas J. Matthews, Asst. Dist. Atty., Macon, Susan V. Boleyn, Senior Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Law, Atlanta, for State.

Paige M. Reese, Staff Atty., Dept. of Law, Atlanta.

FLETCHER, Justice.

James H.L. Martin was convicted of malice murder, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony in connection with the shooting death of Milton Sanford.Martin contends that he should be granted a new trial based on the insufficiency of the evidence, the improper admission of a statement into evidence, and prosecutorial misconduct.We affirm.¹

1.Whether a defendant waives his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694(1969), and makes a voluntary and knowing statement depends on the totality of the circumstances.Reinhardt v. State, 263 Ga. 113, 115, 428 S.E.2d 333(1993).On appeal the standard of review is whether the trial court was clearly erroneous in its factual findings on the admissibility of the statement.Baldwin v. State, 263 Ga. 524, 435 S.E.2d 926(1993).

We conclude that the trial court correctly allowed the statement into evidence.The defendant was 26 years old and held a high school equivalency diploma.He knew that he was charged with murder.He was interviewed briefly on the morning of his arrest and again six hours later; Miranda warnings were given at the beginning of each interview.He made a telephone call to his family prior to the second interview, but did not ask them to obtain an attorney and did not request the presence of an attorney at his interviews.Although Martin told one officer that he was not going to say anything at that time and would not give a name because he was afraid for his family, he told another officer that he was willing to talk and allowed the officer to take notes.Based on the totality of these circumstances, the trial court's decision to admit the statement is not clearly erroneous.

2.The opinion affirming the felony murder conviction of Carlton Bernard Johnson, one of Martin's co-defendants, describes the evidence presented at trial.SeeJohnson v. State, 263 Ga. 395, 435 S.E.2d 195(1993);see alsoSwint v. State, 263 Ga. 601, 436 S.E.2d 320(1993)(affirming the convictions of a second co-defendant).In addition, Johnson told police in a statement admitted into evidence that Martin had a gun and told Johnson to call Sanford.Sanford's girlfriend testified that Tank, one of Martin's names, tied her up, retied Sanford's hands and feet, and guarded her while Sanford was shot.Martin admitted in his statement that he was standing next to Sanford's girlfriend when Sanford was killed.When police arrested Martin, he was hiding under bed covers at Johnson's house and reaching for a semi-automatic pistol.After reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury's determination of guilt, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found Martin guilty of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt.Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560(1979).

3.At a second hearing on his ...