Sinns v. State, 37371

• Decision Date: 28 October 1981
• Docket Number: No. 37371,37371
• Citation: 283 S.E.2d 479,248 Ga. 385
• Parties: James L. SINNS v. The STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Page 479

283 S.E.2d 479

248 Ga. 385

James L. SINNS v. The STATE.

No. 37371.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Oct. 28, 1981.

Philip Louis Ruppert, Jonesboro, for James L. Sinns.

Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Margaret V. Lines, Asst. Dist. Atty., Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., W. Davis Hewitt, Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

Three issues are presented in this appeal from a conviction of murder and sentence of life imprisonment: (1) whether the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the confession of appellant who was held for seven days without a commitment hearing; (2) whether the trial court erred in failing to direct the court reporter to transcribe all bench conferences; (3) whether the trial court erred in not allowing rebuttal testimony from an expert witness called on behalf of appellant.

1. Appellant was convicted of the murder of Yong Hui Griffin and sentenced to life imprisonment. Appellant was first questioned in Bainbridge, Georgia, where he was being held. Appellant alleges that he was held for seven days before a commitment hearing was held. During this period he made statements which were later admitted into evidence.

The rule in Georgia, and in the federal courts as well, is that "... a conviction will not be vacated on the ground that the defendant was detained pending trial without a determination of probable cause." Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 119, 95 S.Ct. 854, 865, 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975); Hance v. State, 245 Ga. 856, 268 S.E.2d 339 (1980); State v. Middlebrooks, 236 Ga. 52, 222 S.E.2d 343 (1976).

Appellant alleges that the fact that he was held seven days before being brought before a magistrate constituted a form of duress which made his confession involuntary. We do not agree.

The trial court held a hearing as required by Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1174, 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964). Following this hearing the court ruled that the statements made by defendant were freely and voluntarily given. Appellant was interviewed by Atlanta police in Bainbridge, Georgia, on November 29, 1979, and was advised of his Miranda rights at that time. Defendant was transported to Atlanta on December 4, 1979. He was advised of his rights but was not questioned. He was again advised of his rights when next interviewed on December 6, 1979. He was given the Miranda warnings yet another time when interviewed on December 7, 1979, in Atlanta. On November 29, December 6, and December 7 appellant signed waiver of counsel forms.

At the Jackson v. Denno hearing counsel for the appellant indicated that appellant did not contest the voluntariness of the confession. Counsel for appellant indicated to the court that the issue was an alleged violation of appellant's constitutional rights. There was testimony at the hearing that appellant was being held in Bainbridge on other charges when first interviewed by Atlanta police and that the Atlanta police did not execute their arrest warrant until sometime later. There was testimony that appellant was given Miranda warnings at each interview and signed three waiver of counsel forms. Appellant presented no evidence to contradict assertions of the state that appellant's statements were freely and voluntarily given.

Findings of a trial judge that a confession has been freely and voluntarily given will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly erroneous. Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477, 92 S.Ct. 619, 30 L.Ed.2d 618 (1972); Peek v. State, 239 Ga. 422, 238 S.E.2d 12 (1977), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 882 99 S.Ct. 218, 58 L.Ed.2d 194 (1978); Johnson v. State, 233 Ga. 58, 209 S.E.2d 629 (1974). We find that the admission of the statements was not clearly erroneous.

2. Appellant complains that the court reporter failed to take down two bench conferences even though he had before trial made a motion for recordation of all proceedings. Of the two bench conferences in question, one concerned the admissibility of expert testimony which is the object of division 3 of this opinion. Because of our holding in that division, we need not address the question of the recordation of that conference. The other bench conference in question concerned the admissibility of testimony from the resident manager of the victim's apartment as to the victim's association with persons other than appellant. Upon the state's questioning the relevancy of events prior to the date of death, a bench conference was held and, appellant contends, the testimony excluded. The appellant recognizes that a court's failure to order recordation of bench conferences is not error absent some prejudice to a defendant. Appellant insists, however, that the proceeding involved a determination of admissibility of evidence essential to appellant's defense. This assertion does not amount to a sufficient showing of harm or prejudice to require reversal. Davis v. State, 242 Ga. 901, 252 S.E.2d 443 (1979); Stephens v. Hopper, 241 Ga. 596, 247 S.E.2d 92 (1978).

3. Appellant enumerates as error the trial court's refusal to allow testimony from an expert witness. Appellant attempted to elicit testimony from a clinical psychologist as to the emotional and mental state of appellant at the time of his confession. The court refused to allow the testimony of the psychologist. The record indicates that the court excluded the testimony of the psychologist based upon the holding of Smith v. State, 156 Ga.App. 419, 274 S.E.2d 703 (1980), that a witness is not allowed to express an opinion as to the ultimate fact to be decided by the jury. This court later reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment in Smith v. State, supra: "We hold that the correct rule is as follows: Expert opinion testimony on issues to be decided by the jury, even the ultimate issue, is admissible where the conclusion of the expert is one which jurors would not ordinarily be able to draw for themselves; i. e., the conclusion is beyond the ken of the average layman." The question is whether the rule pronounced by this court in Smith should be extended to this case. We hold that it should not. The Smith holding was the...