Peters v. State
| Decision Date | 19 May 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 42627,No. 2,42627,2 |
| Citation | 156 S.E.2d 195,115 Ga.App. 743 |
| Parties | Dean R. PETERS v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The State carried its burden of showing that the officer arresting the defendant without a warrant acted on reasonably trustworthy information sufficient to warrant a prudent man under the circumstances in making the arrest.
2. A legal arrest, although a warrantless one, is not rendered void ab initio by the fact that the arrested party was detained for some 36 hours before being accorded a committal hearing.
3. The is no merit in the enumeration objecting to the court's instructions to the jury.
The defendant appeals his conviction and sentence of 10 years for a burglary committed in Columbus, Muscogee County, Georgia.
A. L. Haden, Jr., Columbus, for appellant.
W. B. Skipworth, Jr., Sol. Gen., Frank K. Martin, Columbus, for appellee.
1. The appellant contends that his arrest without a warrant was illegal and therefore evidence obtained from his person without a search warrant during the illegal arrest was inadmissible at the trial. 'Evidence of guilt which the defendant, either directly or indirectly, is compelled to disclose by an unlawful search and seizure of his person under illegal arrest, is not admissible in a criminal prosecution of the person thus illegally arrested.' Scott v. State, 14 Ga.App. 806(4), 82 S.E. 376. See Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081.
In a previous appeal of this case, the appellant secured a new trial because the State failed in its burden of showing the legality of the warrantless arrest, the court predicating its reversal on its finding that the State did not present with sufficient specificity that the arrest was made by the officers on probable cause, i.e., 'whether at that moment the facts and circumstances within their knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the defendant had committed * * * an offense.' Peters v. State, 114 Ga.App. 595, 152 S.E.2d 647. (See the cited case for a good analysis of the law and discussion of the problems involved in this area). The question here is whether the State carried this burden on the retrial.
The defendant-appellant was indicted, tried and convicted for a burglary occurring on the premises of H. Rothschild, Inc. where a locked safe had been forcibly opened and certain of its contents taken. The burglary was discovered by law enforcement officers on March 6, 1966. Detective Baker, who was shown to have been in New York during the first trial, testified that he had come into the case on March 7, 1966. At about noon on that day he had been in contact with an informer with whom he had discussed the burglary. He had known the informer for 'ten or twelve years.' He had received information from this informer on previous cases for a period of about two or three years which had proved to be reliable. On cross examination the detective testified that he had received information from the informer on two other case 'like this one * * * that I was able to take the information that I got from him and go on and complete the cases,' that the informer had never given him any information that proved unreliable or that he was not able to verify, and that the informer had told him that Peters was definitely the man. On direct examination the detective testified that during their first conversation the informer told the detective Later, between 4:30 and 5 o'clock, the detective had another conversation with the informer who said that it was Peters (defendant) 'who hit that job * * * when you find Peters you are going to find that he was injured because the safe door fell on him * * * he has got a skinned place over one of his eyes, one of his shoulders and arm and side is bruised up * * * he is around town right now but he is fixing to leave town.' The detective testified that the informer also told him that a few days before the burglary the informer had attempted to get Peters to repay him a loan but that Peters said he had no money and to give him a few days. Since then, the informer told the detective, Peters had paid him over a hundred dollars, had paid his room rent and had paid someone else over a hundred dollars, and now had a roll as big as your fist. The detective then discussed this information with his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peters v. Kiff 8212 5078
... ... Justice DOUGLAS and Mr ... Justice STEWART, concluded that: ... 1. Petitioner, under the circumstances of this case, has not ... abandoned his challenge to the petit jury by failing to include it ... in the list of questions presented by the writ of certiorari. Pp ... 2. A State cannot, consistent with due process, subject a ... defendant to indictment by a grand jury or trial by a petit jury ... that has been selected in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner ... contrary to federal constitutional and statutory requirements, and ... regardless of any showing of actual ... ...
-
Capestany v. State
...until a warrant or indictment is obtained, Vaughn v. State, 248 Ga. 127, 130(1)(a), 281 S.E.2d 594 (1981); Peters v. State, 115 Ga.App. 743, 746(2), 156 S.E.2d 195 (1967).7 Thus, once, a warrant is obtained, OCGA &# 167; 17-4-62 does not require that the defendant be released for being depr......
-
Peters v. Rutledge
...As to the state law error the Georgia Courts have determined that Appellant's arrest was legal under Georgia law, see Peters v. State, 1967, 115 Ga.App. 743, 156 S.E.2d 195. Nevertheless, for the more restrictive federal assessment "we are warranted in examining that arrest to determine whe......
-
State v. Chaney
...this provision to mean release "from imprisonment or custody" until a warrant is obtained. Ga.Code Ann. § 27-212; Peters v. State, 115 Ga.App. 743, 156 S.E.2d 195, 197 (1967); Blake v. State, 109 Ga.App. 636, 137 S.E.2d 49 at 53 (1964).6 At oral argument it was stated that both defendants h......