Pittman v. State
| Decision Date | 13 March 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 35602,35602 |
| Citation | 245 Ga. 453,265 S.E.2d 592 |
| Parties | PITTMAN v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Frank J. Petrella, Atlanta, for appellant.
J. Lane Johnston, Dist. Atty., William T. Hankins, III, Asst. Dist. Atty., Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Mary Beth Westmoreland, Staff Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant was convicted in Bulloch Superior Court for the murder and armed robbery of Paul Hendrix. He received a sentence of life imprisonment for the murder and fifteen years to run concurrently for the armed robbery. A co-defendant, Jimmy Dees, had entered a plea of guilty to the crimes and testified for the state.
Dees testified that he and the appellant had spent the day of the incident together in and around Claxton, Georgia. Dees' family lived in Claxton at the Todd Apartments. They had been drinking all day and decided to go rabbit hunting around six in the evening. They drove in the appellant's car to see the victim who lived behind the service station of his uncle, L. C. Livingston, to borrow a shotgun. According to Dees, they met the victim at the station and after Livingston left, the appellant and the victim broke into the station, taking some money and a radio. The victim brought his uncle's shotgun and the three men drove around continuing to drink.
At some point, they pulled into the parking lot of a church and got out of the car. Dees version indicates that the appellant and the victim got into an argument over some money and he, Dees, struck the victim in the head with the shotgun. Dees stated that as the victim tried to get up, appellant struck him in the head also. Dees admitted that he then shot the victim in the head. Both men pulled the body into some bushes to conceal it and left in the car, driving to a creek to dispose of the gun on the way home.
Dees and the appellant then returned to the Todd Apartments where the appellant's wife was visiting in the apartment of Dees' sister. Witnesses at the apartment testified that the men came in, appeared to be drunk and were in a hurry to leave, saying they had hurt someone very badly. Dees and the appellant packed up some clothes and left with the appellant's wife. They drove as far as Tennessee and returned to Georgia.
Dees turned himself in, confessed to the murder and robbery of Hendrix, and went with the police to the church where they then found the body. His statement also led to the arrest of the appellant who was apprehended in Clinch County. After being advised of his Miranda rights, he chose to remain silent. He was transferred to Bulloch County by GBI Agent Butler who had read him his rights.
Agent Butler testified that the appellant asked him if anyone else was under arrest and when told Dees was in custody, he made a statement to Butler. Appellant stated, and later testified at trial, that it was Dees who got into a fight with the victim and that he himself never struck the victim. He denied taking any money from the victim and testified that it was Dees who broke into the service station, although at trial he admitted helping Dees break open the door at the station. He further admitted at trial that he helped hide the body and drove with Dees to Tennessee before returning to Georgia.
1. In his first enumeration of error, the appellant complains that the trial court did not provide a full evidentiary hearing on the voluntariness of his confession as required by Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964). A Jackson-Denno hearing was held out of the presence of the jury. The state's evidence showed that appellant had been advised of his Miranda rights and no promises or threats were made to induce the statement. GBI Agent Butler, to whom the statements were made, testified that although Pittman had been drinking, he was coherent and rational at the time the statement was given. After the cross-examination of Butler, the judge ruled the statement admissible over the objection of defense counsel who wished to place the defendant on the stand to testify that he was intoxicated and not coherent when the statement was made. The trial court would not allow the defendant to testify out of the presence of the jury.
We have held that under these circumstances, a hearing at which the defendant is not allowed to present testimony on the surrounding circumstances affecting the voluntariness of his statements does not meet the standards of Jackson v. Denno, Pierce v. State, 238 Ga. 126, 231 S.E.2d 744 (1977). Pursuant to Pierce and Lawrence v. State, 241 Ga. 36, 243 S.E.2d 78 (1978), we returned the case to the trial court in order that a complete Jackson-Denno hearing be held as to the totality of the circumstances surrounding the statements.
A hearing was held at which Agent Butler again testified for the state, and the appellant was allowed to testify and call witnesses. Appellant's mother and brother testified that five days before the statement in question was made, they were with him and he had been drinking heavily. They testified that he holds his liquor well, that he can be drunk and not stagger around. His father testified that Roy had been with him the day of the arrest and statement and the day before. He stated that they had been drinking heavily during that time.
The appellant also testified he drank a lot on the day of his arrest. He testified that Butler read him his rights and that he understood his rights and knew he could waive them. However, he stated that he did not remember giving a statement to Butler concerning the murder of Hendrix or related to Dees.
Appellant enumerates as error the failure of this court to allow an extension of time so that he could find and subpoena additional witnesses for the Jackson-Denno hearing. He specifically states he was unable to locate two individuals who were with the appellant and his father the two days prior to the arrest, and that their testimony would further...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Southern v. State
...(citing Carpenter v. State, 252 Ga. 79, 310 S.E.2d 912) (1984) (remanding case for in camera inspection of documents); Pittman v. State, 245 Ga. 453, 265 S.E.2d 592 (1980) (remanding case for Jackson Denno The majority holds that a limited remand is inappropriate because the State failed to......
-
Gribble v. State
...to find that the state had shown the voluntariness of appellant's confession by a preponderance of the evidence. See Pittman v. State, 245 Ga. 453, 265 S.E.2d 592 (1980); Pierce v. State, 235 Ga. 237, 219 S.E.2d 158 4. In his fourth enumeration of error, appellant asserts that one of the ju......
-
Thompson v. State
...case in reviewing the determination of the trial court as to whether or not a defendant's statement was voluntary. Pittman v. State, 245 Ga. 453, 454(1), 265 S.E.2d 592 (1980). The Supreme Court of the United States recently has equated seizures of persons with seizures of tangible items fo......
-
Payne v. State
...been employed by the appellate courts of this state. Cofield v. State, 247 Ga. 98, 106(4), 274 S.E.2d 530 (1981); Pittman v. State, 245 Ga. 453, 455, 265 S.E.2d 592 (1980); Lawrence v. State, 241 Ga. 36, 37(1), 243 S.E.2d 78 (1978); Pierce v. State, 238 Ga. 126, 129, 231 S.E.2d 744 (1977); ......