Satterwhite v. State, A94A0328
| Decision Date | 22 February 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. A94A0328,A94A0328 |
| Citation | 442 S.E.2d 5,212 Ga.App. 543 |
| Parties | SATTERWHITE v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Word & Flinn, Gerald P. Word, T. Michael Flinn, Carrollton, for appellant.
Peter J. Skandalakis, Dist. Atty., Jeffrey W. Hunt, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Wendell Satterwhite appeals from his convictions of rape, kidnapping and aggravated assault.
1. Satterwhite contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence of the statement he made to the police because there is no evidence that before making the statement he voluntarily waived his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). "The trial court's findings as to factual determinations and credibility relating to the admissibility of statements will be upheld on appeal unless they are clearly erroneous." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Higginbotham v. State, 207 Ga.App. 424(1), 428 S.E.2d 592 (1993). In the instant case, contrary to Satterwhite's contention, the State presented evidence at the hearing held pursuant to Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964), showing that Satterwhite voluntarily waived his rights prior to making the statement. The officer who took the statement testified at the hearing that Satterwhite was informed of his Miranda rights, appeared to understand those rights, had an opportunity to read a form listing his rights, was read and appeared to read the waiver portion of that form, signed the form waiving his rights and then made the statement. During the trial, the State introduced into evidence the form listing the Miranda rights and containing Satterwhite's written waiver of those rights. Because the trial court's finding that Satterwhite voluntarily waived his rights before making his statement is supported by the State's evidence, we will not look behind it. Gatson v. State, 198 Ga.App. 279, 280(2), 401 S.E.2d 71 (1991). The court committed no error in admitting evidence of Satterwhite's statement.
2. Satterwhite argues that the court erred in allowing two police investigators to give testimony improperly bolstering the victim's credibility. The first investigator testified that physical evidence found at the scene of the crime conformed to the victim's story. Although an expert witness may not testify as to his opinion of the victim's truthfulness, "[t]he witness may ... express an opinion as to whether medical or other objective evidence in the case is consistent with the victim's story." State v. Oliver, 188 Ga.App. 47, 50-51(2), 372 S.E.2d 256 (1988). Here, the investigator did not improperly give his opinion of the victim's truthfulness, but instead merely expressed his opinion that the physical evidence was consistent with the victim's story. The trial court did not err in allowing this testimony.
The second investigator testified that the victim's pre-trial statement...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Strickland v. State
...349 S.E.2d 684 (1986). A witness may express an opinion whether evidence is consistent with the victim's story. Satterwhite v. State, 212 Ga.App. 543(2), 442 S.E.2d 5 (1994). In addition, Strickland was permitted to cross-examine Dean regarding other factors which could have caused the vict......
-
Freeman v. State, A06A0969.
...objective evidence in the case is consistent with the victim's story." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Satterwhite v. State, 212 Ga.App. 543, 543-544(2), 442 S.E.2d 5 (1994). See also Odom v. State, 243 Ga.App. 227(1), 531 S.E.2d 207 (2000); State v. Oliver, 188 Ga.App. 47, 51(2), 372 S......
-
Mency v. State, A97A0981
...that S.H.'s statement was not consistent with what he had learned during the remainder of his investigation. Cf. Satterwhite v. State, 212 Ga.App. 543(2), 442 S.E.2d 5 (1994). Mency's trial counsel therefore was not deficient in failing to object to this testimony. Accordingly, this enumera......
- Venson v. State, A93A2583