Smith v. State

• Decision Date: 02 June 2014
• Docket Number: No. S14A0399.,S14A0399.
• Citation: 295 Ga. 283,759 S.E.2d 520
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Parties: SMITH v. The STATE.

295 Ga. 283
759 S.E.2d 520

SMITH
v.
The STATE.

No. S14A0399.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

June 2, 2014.

[759 S.E.2d 521]

Steven Lee Sparger, Savannah, for appellant.

Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Dep. Atty. Gen., Paula Khristian Smith, Senior Asst. Atty. Gen., Samuel S. Olens, Atty. Gen., Department of Law, Atlanta, Margaret Ellen Heap, Dist. Atty., Emily Catherine Puhala, Asst. Dist. Atty., Chatham County District Attorney's Office, for appellee.

BENHAM, Justice.

Appellant Steven Phillip Smith appeals his convictions for the felony murder of Jatinjumar “Justin” Patel and other crimes.¹ We affirm.

[759 S.E.2d 522]

1. The record viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict shows that just after midnight on September 6, 2008, at the time when employees were closing for the night, appellant attempted to rob a BP gas station convenience store. During the robbery, appellant, dressed in black and wearing a mask, emerged from behind an ice machine and confronted Jasmatbhai “PK” Praklashkumar and Justin Patel, held them at gunpoint, and told PK to open the door to the store. When PK had difficulty opening the door quickly, appellant shot PK twice in his leg. PK then ran away behind the store and called the police. Meanwhile Justin Patel was shot in the chest and eventually died at the scene. Police arrived and were able to recover bullets from the scene; but neither PK nor his other co-worker Alkesh “Andy” Patel, who was inside the store during the robbery, could identify the gunman. At about 11 a.m. on September 6, appellant hid inside a house that was under construction. Miguel Perez testified that while he was working on some drywall in the house, appellant robbed him at gunpoint and took $143 in cash. While investigating the BP shooting and the Perez robbery, investigators received a tip that appellant was involved in one or both of the crimes. Officers obtained a high school photo of appellant and used it to create a photographic line-up which was presented to Perez. From that photographic line-up of six individuals, Perez identified appellant as his assailant.²

Upon obtaining a positive identification from Perez, police placed appellant's house under surveillance on the evening of September 7 and obtained a warrant for his arrest for the Perez robbery and a search warrant for his house. Later that same night, while police had his house under surveillance, appellant and a confederate held Justin and Shannon Freeman at gunpoint as the Freemans were closing the restaurant at which they were employed. The Freemans testified that the they were pistol whipped and forced inside the restaurant to the office. The two assailants then tied up Justin Freeman and forced Shannon Freeman to open a safe and to give them the money inside it. In addition to money from the safe, the assailants took Shannon's camera and Justin's cell phone. The two men then put the Freemans in a bathroom and left the premises. The Freemans let themselves out of the bathroom once they were sure their assailants were gone and called police. Not long after police got word of the Freemans robbery, appellant was dropped off at his house by someone driving a red Honda Civic. Police watched the house for a few more hours and then executed the arrest and search warrants in the early morning hours of September 8. Police found Justin Freeman's cell phone in the pocket of appellant's pants and they discovered Shannon Freeman's camera inside his house in his sister's room. During a videotaped interview with police, appellant waived his Miranda rights and confessed to the robberies of Perez and the Freemans and confessed to the shooting at the BP station. Appellant also told police where they could find his gun, a .38 caliber revolver, used in all three incidents. A ballistics expert confirmed that the shell casings recovered from the gas station and the bullet taken from Justin Patel's body, were consistent with being fired from appellant's gun.

[759 S.E.2d 523]

Appellant challenges the trial court's admission of his confession to police and, in turn, the sufficiency of the evidence related to his convictions for the crimes associated with the BP shooting. This Court has held:

The standard for determining the admissibility of a defendant's confession is the preponderance of the evidence. To determine whether a confession was voluntarily made, a trial court must consider the totality of the circumstances, and unless clearly erroneous, a trial court's credibility determinations and factual findings relating to the admissibility of a confession must be upheld on appeal. However, we independently apply the law to the facts.

(Citations and quotations omitted.) Turner v. State, 287 Ga. 793(3), 700 S.E.2d 386 (2010). A confession is voluntary if it is neither induced by the slightest hope of benefit nor the remotest fear of injury. See the former OCGA § 24–3–50.³ For reasons set forth below, appellant's enumerations of error concerning his confession and the sufficiency of the evidence cannot be sustained.

(a) At the time appellant made a statement to police, he was under arrest for the Perez robbery and suspected of the two other crimes. He was given his Miranda⁴ rights before the interrogation commenced and he waived those rights. Within the first twenty minutes of the interrogation, appellant admitted that he shot Justin Patel at the BP station. During the discussion of the BP incident, the police told appellant that there was a surveillance tape showing that the victim lunged at appellant before appellant shot him. The police made statements to appellant to the effect that the shooting was an “accident” in response to the victim lunging at appellant and appellant eventually made inculpatory statements.⁵ Appellant contends the trial court erred in admitting the videotaped confession into evidence because he contends it was induced by the slightest hope of benefit “as the hope of lighter punishment was clearly implied by the [detective's] excusable accident theory,” in violation of the former OCGA § 24–3–50. We disagree. “A hope of benefit generally arises from ‘promises related to reduced criminal punishment—a shorter sentence, lesser charges, or no charges at all.’ [Cit.]” Dennis v. State, 293 Ga. 688(2), 748 S.E.2d 390 (2013). At no point did detectives tell appellant that he would not be charged with murder, that he would be charged with a crime less than murder, or that he would receive lesser punishment if he confessed. In fact, appellant understood that he would be incarcerated for his actions because he twice asked about obtaining a bond and made statements to the effect that he knew he was going to jail. Under these circumstances, there was no violation of OCGA § 24–3–50.

(b)(i) Appellant...