State v. Ray, S00A0769.

• Decision Date: 05 June 2000
• Docket Number: No. S00A0769.,S00A0769.
• Citation: 531 S.E.2d 705,272 Ga. 450
• Parties: The STATE v. RAY.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

531 S.E.2d 705

272 Ga. 450

The STATE v. RAY.

No. S00A0769.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

June 5, 2000.

Spencer Lawton, Jr., District Attorney, Ann M. Elmore, Assistant District Attorney, Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, Susan V. Boleyn, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Allison G. Vrolijk, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.

Jackson & Schiavone, Michael G. Schiavone, William A. Dowell, Savannah, for appellee.

HUNSTEIN, Justice.

The State appeals from the trial court's ruling excluding the confession Scott Brandon Ray made to police on July 8, 1998 at the Port Wentworth Police Department. Ray is charged in a multi-count indictment for crimes arising out of the shotgun murder and armed robbery of Paulajayne Sprague at the Savannah Truck Wash. The State has filed its notice of its intention to seek the death penalty. Finding no clear error in the trial court's determination that Ray's confession was not voluntary, we affirm.

1. The State's appeal was proper under OCGA § 5-7-1(a)(4). See State v. Henderson, 271 Ga. 264, 517 S.E.2d 61 (1999); State v. Ritter, 268 Ga. 108, fn. 1, 485 S.E.2d 492 (1997). This Court earlier denied Ray's motion to dismiss the appeal made on the basis that Unified Appeal Procedure proceedings, OCGA § 17-10-35 et seq., were pending in the trial court.

2. In addressing this appeal, we bear in mind that in a ruling on a motion to suppress a trial court's findings as to disputed facts will be reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard and that the trial court's application of the law to undisputed facts is subject to de novo appellate review. Vansant v. State, 264 Ga. 319(1), 443 S.E.2d 474 (1994). The trial court found that Ray's confession was inadmissible because the detectives questioning him raised the issue of punishment and impliedly promised Ray that he could receive a life sentence rather than the death penalty if he cooperated and confessed to the crime.

Under Georgia law, only voluntary incriminating statements are admissible against the accused at trial. OCGA § 24-3-50. When not made freely and voluntarily, a confession is presumed to be legally false and cannot be the underlying basis of a conviction. [Cit.] To make a confession admissible, it must have been made voluntarily, i.e., "without being induced by another by the slightest hope of benefit or remotest fear of injury." [Cits.]

State v. Ritter, supra, 268 Ga. at 109(1), 485 S.E.2d 492. The "slightest hope of benefit" in OCGA § 24-3-50 means the hope of a lighter sentence. Arline v. State, 264 Ga. 843(2), 452 S.E.2d 115 (1995).

The State bears the burden of demonstrating the voluntariness of a confession by a preponderance of the evidence. State v. Ritter, supra, 268 Ga. at 110(1), 485 S.E.2d 492. The record in this case reveals that Paulajayne Sprague died from a shotgun blast to her face during an armed robbery at the Savannah Truck Wash, where Ray was an employee. Ray was questioned at work by police. The police recovered a videotape from the truck wash which showed the crimes were committed by two masked men, one black and one white, armed respectively with a shotgun and a handgun. Another truck wash videotape made earlier that same day showed Ray, a Caucasian-American male, talking to Johnson, an African-American male, who was a former truck wash employee. Prior to their interrogation of Ray on July 8, police recovered a shotgun, which police believed to be the murder weapon, from a relative of Johnson. Police also recovered Ray's brother-in-law's nine millimeter Larson handgun, to which Ray allegedly had access, which looked identical to the weapon seen on the crime scene videotape and had dents in its handle which matched the indentations inflicted to force open the cash drawer at the truck wash during the robbery. Additionally, police had obtained items of Ray's clothing, including a pair of slacks stained with a substance an officer stated looked like blood; had statements from Ray's family contradicting Ray's previous statement that he was present in his home at the time of the murder; and had witnesses to Ray's threat to kill the victim over a misunderstanding with Ray's pay check.

Ray, a seventeen-year-old who had just completed the eleventh grade, was interviewed by two veteran police detectives on July 8, 1998 at the Port Wentworth Police Department.¹ During the course of the interrogation, the officers repeatedly indicated to Ray that they believed he was one of the two men involved in the crimes.² At one point the officers posited a "hypothetical" to Ray indicating that when a murder is committed by two individuals, the party willing to testify against the other would have the possibility of not facing the death penalty;³ the officers also intimated that Ray could save himself from execution by telling the officers truthfully about the crimes.⁴ Approximately two hours into the interview, the officer told Ray "[g]ive us the facts and we will become easy to get along with you and it might possibly...." Ray interrupted, to ask, "what would I get if I give the other guy up?" The officer replied, "Possibly—here's what I can tell you. Years of freedom." Ray, who had been reduced to tears by this time, shortly thereafter told police that the "other guy" was Jason Johnson. It was at this point that the officer first read Ray his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and obtained a waiver of those rights and a statement from Ray confessing his participation in the crimes.

Our review of the interrogation fails to support the State's claim that the trial court...