McAllister v. State
| Decision Date | 23 November 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. S98A0965.,S98A0965. |
| Citation | 270 Ga. 224,507 S.E.2d 448 |
| Parties | McALLISTER v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Ronnie K. Batchelor, Lawrenceville, for Michael Gabriel McAllister, Jr.
Daniel J. Porter, Dist. Atty., Rodney Keith Miles, Asst. Dist. Atty., Lawrenceville, Hon. Thurbert E. Baker, Atty. Gen., Department of Law, Atlanta, for the State.
A jury found Michael Gabriel McAllister guilty of malice murder in the strangulation death of Donna Evelyn Ward. Following the denial of his motion for new trial, McAllister appeals his murder conviction, challenging the admission of his inculpatory statement to investigators, the admission of autopsy photographs of the victim, and the sufficiency of the evidence of guilt. The challenges are without merit, and we affirm. 1
On the morning of October 6, 1995, Donna Ward was found dead by her seven-year-old son; she was lying nude in a few inches of water in her bathtub. The cause of death was determined to be strangulation by a soft and broad object, consistent with the crook of an arm held in a "choke hold" manner. Ward also had two bruises to the head from blunt impact which could have been caused by a fist.
Ward had known McAllister for about three years. McAllister drove a taxicab and would often help Ward with her transportation needs. He also developed a friendship with Ward's seven-year-old son. McAllister wanted a more serious relationship with Ward and to become her husband and assume the role of the child's father; however, Ward still cared for her son's biological father and was planning to move nearer to him, facts which upset McAllister.
The day before Ward was found murdered, she took her son to work with her at a local restaurant. At the end of her shift, Ward, her son, and a male co-worker, Stanfield, went to Ward's home. Ward and Stanfield talked and smoked some marijuana. Later that afternoon, Ward paged McAllister to come to her home to pick up Stanfield and take him back to work. McAllister did so, and Ward paid him the cab fare. During the drive, Stanfield tried to converse with McAllister, but McAllister appeared angry and would not respond.
Following the murder, police met with Ward's family. A family member told an investigator that Ward had been involved in some type of relationship with McAllister. McAllister was interviewed several times by police. During an interview on December 13, 1995, McAllister made an oral confession. He was placed under arrest, given Miranda warnings,2 and he executed a written waiver. McAllister then recounted his version of events, and the account was reduced to writing.
McAllister's written statement was that Ward called McAllister and asked him to pick up Stanfield from her house; McAllister was upset with Ward because Stanfield was there; in the early morning hours of October 6, 1995, McAllister drove back to Ward's house to find out why she had been with Stanfield; Ward let McAllister inside and told him that she was smoking marijuana with Stanfield; McAllister asked if Stanfield had "wanted anything else" and Ward responded that was why she had called McAllister; McAllister asked if he was Ward's "trash collector," and she responded that at that point he was; McAllister complained about Ward's treatment of him; he was tired of bailing Ward out of trouble and thought that he had shown her a better way of life; Ward asked McAllister to leave; when he started to, Ward said, "yeah, that's it[,] run back to your mother's house"; McAllister came "unglued"; he raised his hand and hit Ward in the back of the head with an "open fist"; Ward slumped and McAllister tried to catch her, grabbing her from behind, around the neck with the crease of his elbow and forearm; McAllister "didn't realize" he had squeezed her neck; Ward went limp and fell to the floor; McAllister picked her up and put her on the couch; he went to the bathroom and filled the bathtub with a few inches of water; he returned to the couch, picked Ward up and placed her in the bathtub "to wake her up"; when Ward did not come to and McAllister determined that she had no pulse, he panicked; he drove home and crawled into bed; McAllister went to work at 6:00 a.m.
After the written statement, McAllister telephoned his mother, saying to her, On the way to the jail, McAllister ranted,
The autopsy revealed physical signs that Ward was not unconscious at the time she was strangled, and that she had engaged in a struggle. The medical examiner testified that for a neck hold of the nature inflicted on Ward to result in death, the pressure would have to be applied for at least ten to fifteen seconds. Moreover, the hemorrhages in Ward's neck implied a more substantial level of force than mere compression of the carotid arteries.
1. McAllister contends the trial court erred in allowing evidence of his statement of the circumstances of Ward's death at the December 13, 1995 meeting with police because it was given without his being advised of his constitutional rights pursuant to Miranda. During the two-month investigation of Ward's murder, McAllister met for discussion with police investigator King six times and was told that he was considered a suspect; the last three meetings took place at the police station. McAllister had not been given Miranda warnings on any of the previous meetings, and was not given any prior to the December 13 meeting.
By arrangement, King met McAllister on the steps of the police station on December 13. Prior to entering, King assured McAllister, as he had at the previous meetings, that he was not under arrest or being detained, that anytime he felt uncomfortable he could get up and walk out, that he was free to leave at anytime. They entered, were joined by investigator Lang, and went to the same interview room where the prior meetings had taken place. This room was in an area of the police station that was behind a security door; King had to enter a security code to pass through the door to enter the area, but to exit the door opened by simply turning the doorknob. Lang asked McAllister to provide written answers to written questions, and the officers left McAllister alone for approximately fifteen minutes to do so. The door to the interview room was left open at McAllister's request.
After McAllister completed his written answers, Lang discussed those answers with McAllister for approximately an hour or two. Lang then informed King that McAllister had made an inconsistent statement concerning his presence at Ward's house, and King re-entered the interview room. McAllister asked if someone had seen his vehicle at Ward's home the night of the murder and, when King did not answer, said Ward's name and "what have I done, what have I done." McAllister then said he wanted to tell the truth, King said he wanted McAllister to tell the truth, and McAllister gave a narrative of the circumstances of Ward's death. He was placed under arrest, given Miranda warnings, and then made a written statement. McAllister never asked for an attorney and never indicated a desire to terminate the interview, either before or after the Miranda warnings. He reviewed the draft, marked out certain words or phrases, and signed the statement. Following a Jackson-Denno hearing,3 the court found that McAllister was not in custody when he made his initial statement and allowed evidence of McAllister's statement to be considered by the jury.
A person is entitled to Miranda warnings only if the person has been taken into custody or deprived of freedom of action in a significant way. Moses v. State, 264 Ga. 313, 314(1), 444...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rogers
...App. 1990); State v. Turner, 267 Conn. 414, 838 A.2d 947 (2004); Loredo v. State, 836 So.2d 1103 (Fla.App.2003); McAllister v. State, 270 Ga. 224, 507 S.E.2d 448 (1998); People v. Urban, 196 Ill.App.3d 310, 553 N.E.2d 740, 143 Ill.Dec. 33 (1990); Luna v. State, 788 N.E.2d 832 (Ind.2003); St......
-
Turpin v. Lipham, No. S98A0724
... ... This Court affirmed Lipham's 510 S.E.2d 35 convictions and death sentence in 1988, Lipham v. State, 257 Ga. 808, 364 S.E.2d 840 (1988), and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari. Lipham v. Georgia, 488 U.S. 873, 109 S.Ct. 191, 102 ... ...
-
Sosniak v. The State
...relevant inquiry remains how a reasonable person in Sosniak's position would have perceived his situation. See McAllister v. State, 270 Ga. 224, 228(1), 507 S.E.2d 448 (1998). We conclude that the trial court was authorized to find that, under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable......
-
Sewell v. State
..."relevant inquiry is how a reasonable person in [the] suspect's position would perceive his situation." [Cit.] McAllister v. State, 270 Ga. 224, 227-228(1), 507 S.E.2d 448 (1998). Although Sewell was transported to the police station in a car which had a security screen between the front an......