Ramos v. State, A90A1539
| Decision Date | 28 November 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. A90A1539,A90A1539 |
| Citation | 400 S.E.2d 353,198 Ga.App. 65 |
| Parties | RAMOS v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Megan C. Devorsey, Savannah, for appellant.
Ken Stula, Sol., for appellee.
Maurice Ramos appeals from his conviction for theft by taking.
Construed to support the verdict, the evidence adduced at trial showed that on the evening of October 17, 1989, Raymond Civitts, the Director of Security at the Ramada Inn in Clarke County, was patrolling the parking lot of the inn in the regular course of his duties. He noticed appellant, a cook, open the kitchen door and look around briefly. Several minutes later, Civitts observed appellant carry a large black plastic bag from the kitchen to the dumpster in the parking lot, place the bag behind the dumpster, and reenter the inn, where he made a telephone call from a pay phone. Civitts' suspicions were aroused because he knew that emptying the trash was not one of the duties of a cook pursuant to standard Ramada Inn procedures. Upon investigating, Civitts discovered the bag contained frozen meat, valued at $350, which had been taken from the restaurant's food lockers. Civitts consulted with his superiors, telephoned the police, and apprehended appellant.
Officer David Leedahl of the Athens Police Department, who responded to the call, testified that when Civitts brought appellant out to the parking lot and indicated he would press charges against him, Leedahl handcuffed appellant and placed him in the back of his patrol car for transport to the jail. Leedahl did not interrogate appellant (with the exception of asking for his name and address), but while in the patrol car, appellant volunteered that "they could take it out of his paycheck" and that he would pay for the items in the bag.
1. Appellant contends the trial court erred by admitting appellant's inculpatory statement made in the patrol car, because he was in custody when the statement was made, and the facts surrounding the statement show that it was made with the hope of benefit. See OCGA § 24-3-50. We find no merit in this contention. Although appellant argues that he made the statement in hopes that charges would not be pressed, " Hall v. State, 180 Ga.App. 366, 367(1), 349 S.E.2d 255 (1986). See also Dickey v. State, 157 Ga.App. 13-14(1), 276 S.E.2d 75 (1981). Leedahl testified that no promises or threats were made, and there is no evidence in the record suggesting otherwise. Accordingly, the statement was properly admitted. See id.
2. Appellant also contends the trial court erred by denying or curtailing appellant's right to cross-examine Leedahl in the presence of the jury concerning the events surrounding the statement. We do not agree. Appellant sought to cross-examine Leedahl regarding whether he had advised appellant of his Miranda rights (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966)) before the statement was made. The State objected to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lindsey v. State
...will not exclude a confession.") (decided under former OCGA § 24-3-50 ) (citations and punctuation omitted); Ramos v. State , 198 Ga. App. 65, 66 (1), 400 S.E.2d 353 (1990) (finding that the defendant’s inculpatory statement was admissible under former OCGA § 24-3-50, where the evidence sho......
-
Syfrett v. State, A93A1568
..."[T]he necessity of administering Miranda warnings exists only when the individual is interrogated while in custody." Ramos v. State, 198 Ga.App. 65, 66 (2), 400 S.E.2d 353. Miranda warnings are not a prerequisite to the admission of evidence concerning voluntary statements not made in resp......
-
Parker v. State
...this evidence, the trial court's finding that Parker's statements were voluntary is not clearly erroneous. See Ramos v. State, 198 Ga.App. 65, 66(1), 400 S.E.2d 353 (1990); see generally Rachell v. State, 210 Ga.App. 106, 107(2)(b), 435 S.E.2d 480 (1993). 4. Parker contends the trial court ......
-
Adcock v. State
...of injury," the "fear of injury" referred to in that section does not extend to the facts of this case. See generally Ramos v. State, 198 Ga.App. 65(1), 400 S.E.2d 353 citing Hall v. State, 180 Ga.App. 366(1), 349 S.E.2d 255 (1986); see also Johnson v. State, 170 Ga.App. 71(2), 316 S.E.2d 1......