State v. High, 55212
| Decision Date | 06 April 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,No. 55212,55212,3 |
| Citation | 145 Ga.App. 772,244 S.E.2d 888 |
| Parties | The STATE v. Jose Martinez HIGH |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Richard E. Allen, Dist. Atty., Augusta, for appellant.
John H. Ruffin, Jr., Augusta, for appellee.
We reverse the trial court's sustention of appellee's motion to suppress.
Appellee High was charged with three murders, six kidnappings, two rapes, and one armed robbery. All of these crimes took place in Augusta between August 19 and August 25, 1976. Investigators discovered several similarities between the crimes: the perpetrator used a sawed-off shotgun and blindfolded victims with pieces of their clothing; some victims were placed in trunks of automobiles; surviving victims gave like descriptions of the perpetrator. As a result of evidence police discovered on investigating the August 25 Clay-Hallman kidnapping and rape, police investigation began to focus upon appellee. That crime originated at the intersection of Courtland Drive and Sand Bar Ferry at about 10:30 p. m. Hallman and Clay, the victims, told police that a tall, young, black man with "freckles or blotches" on his face and wearing a red cape came to their car and asked for a ride; upon their acceptance, another black man approached the car from the shadows; both men then exposed sawed-off shotguns and abducted the victims. On August 26 a bus driver informed police that he had been at the intersection of Courtland Drive and Sand Bar Ferry shortly before the abduction and that, at that intersection, he had seen a black man wearing a red cape playing with the traffic light. The bus driver told police that when he stopped at the corner he asked the black man not to play with the light because he might cause an accident, whereupon another person, in the shadows, told him to "get the hell out of there." The bus driver said the man wearing the red cape was Jose Hines and that he lived at the corner of Courtland and Sand Bar Ferry. On further investigation, the police discovered that the High family, with a son named Jose, lived in a house at that corner.
Police then began their surveillance of appellee, and, on August 27, two policemen were following a car he was driving. Another black man was accompanying appellee. After traveling at speeds of up to seventy miles per hour, appellee's car slowed to a "crawl," and the policemen decided to "pull him over," since he obviously realized he was being followed. After stopping, appellee stepped out of the car, and the policemen recognized that he fit the description given by Clay, Hallman, other victims, and the bus driver. Furthermore, appellee was wearing Pro-Ked tennis shoes, and prints from Pro-Ked tennis shoes had been found at the scene of one of the murders. After noting his shoes and the fact that appellee fit the description, the policemen arrested him. The trial court found that probable cause to arrest did not exist and therefore suppressed appellee's confession and other incriminating, physical evidence as fruits of the illegal arrest.
1. The admissibility of a confession is not a proper issue for adjudication on a motion to suppress. Jarrell v. State, 234 Ga. 410, 216 S.E.2d 258 (1975). Therefore, no proper ruling having been made as to the confession's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
High v. State
...appellant's confession. However, the legality of the arrest complained of had been adjudicated in the state's favor. State v. High, 145 Ga.App. 772, 244 S.E.2d 888 (1978). SENTENCE As required by Georgia Laws 1973, p. 159, et seq. (Code Ann. § 27-2537(c) (1-3)), we have reviewed the death s......
-
Martinez High v. Turpin, CV 196-067.
...crimes in Richmond County, Georgia, on August 27, 1976. The legality of High's arrest was upheld on appeal. See State v. High, 145 Ga.App. 772, 774, 244 S.E.2d 888 (1978). 11. It should be noted, however, that High's confessions were not the only items of evidence presented against him. Ind......
-
High v. Zant
...arrest. This contention has been considered and rejected by our courts. High, supra, at p. 295, 276 S.E.2d 5, citing State v. High, 145 Ga.App. 772, 244 S.E.2d 888 (1978). High contends that the admission of incriminating statements made to police while in custody violated the procedural re......
-
Morgan v. State
...appellant's co-indictee, challenging High's arrest. This ruling was reversed on appeal to the Court of Appeals in State v. High, 145 Ga.App. 772, 244 S.E.2d 888 (1978), where the court found High's arrest to be based on probable cause at the time it was made and to be legal even though made......