McKoon v. State
| Decision Date | 08 January 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. S95A1662,S95A1662 |
| Citation | 465 S.E.2d 272,266 Ga. 149 |
| Parties | McKOON v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Johnny B. Mostiler, Griffin, for Michael McKoon.
Johnnie L. Caldwell, Jr., Dist. Atty., Fayetteville, Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., Susan V. Boleyn, Senior Asst. Atty. Gen., Marla-Deen Brooks, Asst. Atty. Gen., Department of Law, Atlanta, for State.
William T. McBroom, Acting Dist. Atty., Griffin.
Michael McKoon was convicted by a jury of two counts of malice murder and theft by taking. He appeals from the judgment of conviction and sentences entered thereon, and from the denial of his motion for new trial. 1
Tim Stroud and Sara Walker were found dead in Stroud's home on July 22, 1992. Both victims had been shot twice in the head and had suffered multiple stab wounds. Stroud's Mercedes-Benz automobile and a number of personal items, including a gold watch and some jewelry, were missing. The Mercedes was later found about a mile from the residence.
On July 25, 1992, McKoon's aunt, while mowing her lawn, uncovered a cardboard tube buried in the yard behind her home. Inside the tube she found a knife, a set of keys, a Mercedes-Benz hood ornament, and a gun which she recognized as belonging to McKoon's mother. Sheriff's deputies were called to the aunt's residence, where McKoon resided along with his mother and other family members. McKoon was then fifteen years old. He was arrested and Miranda warnings were administered in the presence of his mother, grandparents and aunt.
When McKoon asked to talk outside the presence of other family members, he was escorted out of the house by two deputies and driven to the sheriff's office. Mrs. McKoon was told that her son was being taken to the sheriff's department and that she should proceed there also. While McKoon was en route, one of the deputies stated that he wanted to drive to the crime scene to determine if the keys found buried in McKoon's yard would fit any of the vehicles parked at the Stroud residence. McKoon responded, "it's not necessary, those are the keys." He proceeded to tell the officers that he had broken into the Stroud residence, armed with a gun, and shot and killed both victims. 2
McKoon was brought to an interview room at the sheriff's department and was joined shortly thereafter by his mother; Miranda warnings were again administered in her presence. McKoon executed a written waiver of rights, which also bears his mother's signature as a witness. He then gave a taped statement in which he explained in detail his commission of the crimes. While making this statement, he requested that his mother leave the room.
1. Having reviewed the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found McKoon guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes for which he was convicted. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
2. McKoon contends that his initial custodial statement, given while en route to the sheriff's department, was improperly admitted because it was (a) coerced by the officer's remark that he wanted to try the keys at the Stroud residence; (b) made in violation of OCGA § 15-11-19(a)(4); (c) given outside the presence of a family member; and (d) after he requested the assistance of counsel. He further asserts that all subsequent statements should have been excluded.
The admissibility of statements by juveniles depends upon whether, under the totality of the circumstances, there was a knowing and intelligent waiver of constitutional rights. Riley v. State, 237 Ga. 124, 128, 226 S.E.2d 922 (1976). The burden is on the state to demonstrate that the juvenile understood and waived those rights. The analysis involves the application of a nine part test. Id. The factors a court considers include:
[T]he age of the accused; the education of the accused; the knowledge of the accused as to the substance of the charge and nature of his rights to consult with an attorney; whether the accused was held incommunicado or allowed to consult with relatives or an attorney; whether the accused was interrogated before or after formal charges had been filed; methods used in interrogation; length of interrogation; whether accused refused to voluntarily give statements on prior occasions; and whether accused repudiated an extrajudicial statement at a later date.
Henry v. State, 264 Ga. 861, 862, 452 S.E.2d 505 (1995), applying Riley, supra.
After hearing testimony at a Jackson v. Denno hearing, the trial court applied the Riley factors and found under the totality of the circumstances that McKoon had knowingly and intelligently waived his constitutional rights. The court's conclusion was based on evidence that McKoon was fifteen years old at the time of questioning; he was in the ninth grade and he had scored as high as the 98th percentile on various standardized tests; he acknowledged the receipt of Miranda warnings along with an explanation that he was being questioned about the murders and the burglary; he acknowledged...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clark v. State
...knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights under Miranda , "considering the totality of the circumstances"); McKoon v. State , 266 Ga. 149, 150, 465 S.E.2d 272 (1996) (citing Riley for the proposition that "[t]he admissibility of statements by juveniles depends upon whether, under the tota......
-
Berry v. State
...the application of the nine-part test outlined in Riley v. State, 237 Ga. 124, 128, 226 S.E.2d 922 (1976). 9 McKoon v. State, 266 Ga. 149, 150(2), 465 S.E.2d 272 (1996). Here, the record clearly shows that after hearing the evidence at the Jackson Denno hearing, the court applied the Riley ......
-
Short v. State
...Henry v. State, 264 Ga. 861, 862(2), 452 S.E.2d 505 (1995). 23. Henry, supra at 862(2), 452 S.E.2d 505 24. See McKoon v. State, 266 Ga. 149, 151(2), 465 S.E.2d 272 (1996) ("The absence of a parent is just one of nine factors that this Court considers."); Henry, supra at 862-863, 452 S.E.2d ......
-
Jackson v. State
...makes a voluntary and knowing statement depends on the totality of the circumstances.") (citation omitted).13 See McKoon v. State, 266 Ga. 149, 151(2), 465 S.E.2d 272 (1996) ("This Court has held that there is no requirement that a parent be present during questioning of a minor. The absenc......