Reed v. State, 64080
| Citation | 295 S.E.2d 108,163 Ga.App. 364 |
| Decision Date | 07 September 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 64080,64080 |
| Parties | REED v. The STATE. |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
Michael D. Hurtt, Dalton, for appellant.
Stephen A. Williams, Dist. Atty., Marcus R. Morris, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dalton, for appellee.
1. This is an appeal from a conviction for selling an ounce of marijuana. The motion to dismiss on the ground that the notice of appeal was filed more than 30 days after the judgment of conviction is without merit, since the intervening time was tolled by the motion for new trial, the judgment denying which was filed 29 days prior to the filing of the notice of appeal. Code § 6-803.
2. The state brought out in cross examination its contentions (a) that the defendant spontaneously stated to the agent who purchased the marijuana from him, "I never saw you before," and (b) that he denied being in the state of Georgia on the date when he was first accused of having sold the drug (a date the defendant on the trial of the case testified was first presented as March 18, and later changed to March 28).
As to these statements, both made after the arrest in the presence of police officers, the agent, and the assistant district attorney, plaintiff urges error because his demand for discovery under Code Ann. § 27-1302 had not been complied with. The demand entitled him to a written statement of "all relevant and material portions" of any statement made by him while in police custody. Although the state admits that the statements were made either when the defendant was awakened and arrested while in bed or shortly thereafter while handcuffed and on the way to the station to be booked, and that they were not reduced to writing nor given the defendant as required, it is contended that this does not amount to a "custodial statement" so as to come under the codal provisions. We disagree. The provision refers to any statement while in police custody. We have held that if the missing statement is patently harmless, even though it is an in-custody statement, the case will not be reversed. Williams v. State, 159 Ga.App. 508, 509, 284 S.E.2d 27 (1981). Tanner v. State, 160 Ga.App. 266, 267, 287 S.E.2d 268 (1981) refers to an incriminating oral statement made to the police. The same language is used in Johnson v. State, 159 Ga.App. 819, 824, 285 S.E.2d 252 (1981) with the summary that the state is precluded from using unreported oral declarations of the defendant: "The obvious intent of the codal provisions is to preclude the State from ignoring the discovery rights of an accused and provides a penalty if the State ignores its responsibility." Meminger v. State, 160 Ga.App. 509, 511, 287 S.E.2d 296 (1981) refers simply to pretrial statements, pointing out that they are not reversible if harmless but that the burden is on the state to show this fact. Garner v. State, 159 Ga.App. 244, 245, 282 S.E.2d 909 (1981) reiterates that the defendant is entitled to a copy of any statement made by him while in police custody. We also note that this opinion has been modified by Tanner v. State, 160 Ga.App. 266, 287 S.E.2d 268, supra, to the extent that upon a retrial the statements may be used if the statute has then been complied with; otherwise not. From all of the above it is concluded that the section refers to discovery rights and it is always error to fail to give counsel on proper demand a written summary of all relevant and material statements made by him while in custody. The requirement will not be narrowed to the extent urged by the state. In fact, Shy v. State, 234 Ga. 816, 818, 218 S.E.2d 599 (1975) which discusses the difference between Terry-type detentions (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889) and Miranda custody requirements (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694) clearly holds that statements useful to the state's prosecution vouchsafed by the defendant after arrest are in-custody statements. The statements offered here are not such incriminating admissions as trigger Miranda warnings, but they are indeed in-custody statements a written copy of which the defendant is entitled to if the state intends to use them either as incriminatory admissions during its case in chief or for purposes of impeachment by means of contradictory statements, as occurred here during the cross examination.
Since we are unable to say with reasonable certainty that no harm resulted from the state's failure to obey the statutory requirements of Code § 27-1302 w...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McTaggart v. State
...statement" both as to incriminatory matters, exculpatory matters, or impeachment by contradictory matters. Reed v. State, 163 Ga.App. 364, 365, 295 S.E.2d 108 (1982). "The purpose of the discovery statute (OCGA § 17-7-210) is to inform the defendant in writing of all relevant and material p......
-
White v. State
...any oral statement he gave while in police custody. See Van Kleeck v. State, 250 Ga. 551(1), 299 S.E.2d 735 (1983); Reed v. State, 163 Ga.App. 364, 365, 295 S.E.2d 108 (1982). If the state fails to comply with such a timely request, then no relevant or material portions of the defendant's o......
-
Walraven v. State
...cannot agree. The statute plainly refers to "any statement ... given by [the defendant] while in police custody." See Reed v. State, 163 Ga.App. 364, 295 S.E.2d 108 (1982). The state does not contend that the statement was newly discovered, nor is there any indication in the record that app......
-
McKenzie v. State, s. 76328
...was given while appellant was in police custody. Walraven v. State, 250 Ga. 401(2), 297 S.E.2d 278 (1982). See also Reed v. State, 163 Ga.App. 364(2), 295 S.E.2d 108 (1982). Denying the motion for mistrial was not error in light of the statute's call for suppression, a goal successfully acc......