Thomas v. State, 34241
| Decision Date | 27 February 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 34241,34241 |
| Citation | 243 Ga. 217,253 S.E.2d 190 |
| Parties | THOMAS v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Tom W. Thomas, Adel, for appellant.
Vickers Neugent, Dist. Atty., Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., W. Davis Hewitt, Staff Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Kenneth Van Thomas was convicted of the murder of Jerry Dean Inman, a woman, and was sentenced to life imprisonment. He appeals. This court affirms.
1. Thomas contends that the failure of the arresting officer to give him his Miranda warnings (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694) renders his admissions and his tape-recorded statement inadmissible.
The arresting officer found the victim lying on the ground outside an apartment. Thomas drove up and parked his automobile, and the arresting officer asked Thomas for his driver's license. In response to the request to see the license, Thomas stated, "I'm the man that done it." Immediately, the arresting officer gave Thomas his Miranda warnings. The officer asked whether Thomas knew that his wife had been shot. Thomas responded by saying that he had shot her. Later Thomas gave a tape-recorded statement of the circumstances concerning the shooting.
Thomas contends that the officer should have given him his Miranda warnings before asking to see his driver's license. (Matter in brackets added.) Woods v. State, 242 Ga. 277, 248 S.E.2d 612 (1978).
There is no merit in the first enumeration of error.
2. In the absence of a written request to charge, it is not error for the trial court to decline to charge the law of voluntary manslaughter. State v. Stonaker, 236 Ga. 1, 222 S.E.2d 354 (1976); Bouttry v. State, 242 Ga. 60, 247 S.E.2d 859 (1978). The second enumeration of error is without merit.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dick v. State
...absence of a written request, this enumeration is not meritorious. Lamb v. State, 245 Ga. 104, 263 S.E.2d 143 (1980); Thomas v. State, 243 Ga. 217, 253 S.E.2d 190 (1979); State v. Stonaker, 236 Ga. 1, 222 S.E.2d 354 (12) Appellant's enumerations of error 12 and 20 through 22 deal with sente......
-
Carr v. State
...apply, since the statements were not the result of an in-custody interrogation. Burgeson, supra at (3)(c). See also Thomas v. State, 243 Ga. 217, 218, 253 S.E.2d 190 (1979). We also found that introduction of the statements did not offend the federal or state wiretapping statutes because Bu......
-
State ex rel. White v. Mohn
...F.2d 932 (5th Cir. 1968); Coleman v. State, 394 So.2d 82 (Ala.Cr.App.1981); Beed v. State, 609 S.W.2d 898 (Ark.1980); Thomas v. State, 243 Ga. 217, 253 S.E.2d 190 (1979); Gooden v. State, 401 N.E.2d 93 (Ind.App.1980); State v. Jones, 222 Kan. 56, 563 P.2d 1021 (1977); Commonwealth v. O'Brie......
-
Burgeson v. State
...The statements were not the result of an in-custody interrogation, which is necessary to invoke Miranda. Thomas v. State, 243 Ga. 217, 218(1), 253 S.E.2d 190 (1979). d) Burgeson contends that the conversation with Carr should have been suppressed because the tape recording was in violation ......