Thomas v. State
| Decision Date | 18 November 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 29264,29264 |
| Citation | 233 Ga. 237,210 S.E.2d 675 |
| Parties | George THOMAS, Jr. v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
John J. Sullivan, Savannah, for appellant.
Andrew J. Ryan, Jr., Dist. Atty., Savannah, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
On June 28, 1973, B. J. James was killed, stabbed 16 times in the course of the robbery of his small store. Thomas was convicted of the armed robbery and murder, and brings this appeal.
The state's trial evidence showed that Thomas lived with two other young men; that around noon on June 28, 1973 before the killing which occurred in the afternoon, Thomas had asked one roommate whether Mr. James' store was open, and had been toying with a knife which he imbedded in one roommate's bedroom door; that Mr. James' body was discovered at approximately 3:00 p.m. surrounded by evidence of a scuffle, including a broken jar of pickled pigs' feet; that following the discovery of the crime the police questioned Thomas about his possession of a knife and he produced a knife for them; that for a period of time all three roommates were jailed in connection with the investigation and one consented to the search of their living quarters; that the search revealed a suitcase packed with Thomas' personal affects, and a pair of socks smelling of the juice of pickled pigs' feet (the ownership of the socks was not established); that the search further disclosed that the knife Thomas had produced did not fit the mark on the bedroom door. Following the search, Detectives Weatherly and Wedlock interviewed Thomas at the jail, after advising him of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694; he indicated he did not want an attorney, and voluntarily gave the following confession: Police found the murder weapon at the place Thomas said he threw it, but were unable to find the mask. The defense relied upon a theory of temporary insanity brought on by drug addiction, excessive drinking, and the effects of a claimed blow on the head inflicted by the victim.
On this appeal, Thomas raises seven enumerations of error.
1. Enumerations 1 through 4 raise the general grounds but address no argument thereto. The record shows that the evidence supported the verdict, and these enumerations are without merit.
2. Enumeration 5 avers error in admitting into evidence the confession, contended to have been taken when officer Weatherly had advised Thomas that his father had retained an attorney for him, but had refused to allow Thomas to have the advice of counsel. Thomas' brief further argues that he had been deprived of food and water and subjected to constant questioning for 18 hours before confessing; and that the police had suggested to him that a confession might produce a manslaughter charge.
Thomas' arguments on this point find little support in the record. At a voluntariness hearing held outside the presence of the jury both interrogating officers testified that Thomas was fully informed of his Miranda rights. Officer Weatherly testified that Thomas then stated that he wished no attorney and wanted to see only his father. Weatherly denied knowing at the time of taking his statement that any attorney had been actually retained for Thomas by his father. Though on cross examination Thomas' attorney pointed out a possible inconsistency between Weatherly's testimony and his written report in which he had stated that at some unidentified point he had advised Thomas that an attorney had been retained for him, this inconsistency disappeared on redirect examination when Weatherly testified that he first received definite information of the attorney's representation after taking Thomas' statement. The defense had no more questions for this witness, and his final clarified statement was not further attacked on cross examination and is not contradicted by anything in the record. Thomas testified that he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCorquodale v. State
...by a preponderance of the evidence as required by High v. State, 233 Ga. 153, 210 S.E.2d 673, decided October 25, 1974. In Thomas v. State, 233 Ga. 237, 210 S.E.2d 675, this court held that 'Under established Georgia law there is no necessity to give a charge on the subject of the voluntari......
-
Barrow v. State
...Curry v. State, 230 Ga. 221, 196 S.E.2d 443).' McCorquodale v. State, 233 Ga. 369, 211 S.E.2d 577, supra. See also Thomas v. State, 233 Ga. 237, 241, 210 S.E.2d 675 (1974). The fact that the trial judge at the conclusion of the Jackson-Denno hearing stated, 'I will charge the jury on scanni......
-
Ryals v. State
...admissible for the jury's consideration was supported by a preponderance of the evidence ... and was not error." Thomas v. State, 233 Ga. 237, 240(2), 210 S.E.2d 675 (1974). When proper consideration is given to all of the admissible evidence, including appellant's confession, the trial cou......
-
Rogers v. State, 60211
...216 Ga. 174, 177, 115 S.E.2d 345 (both cases approved in Curry v. State, 230 Ga. 221, 196 S.E.2d 443 (no confession))." Thomas v. State, 233 Ga. 237(4), 210 S.E.2d 675. See also Thomas v. State, 234 Ga. 615, 617-618, 216 S.E.2d 859. We find no error under the circumstances of this case. 4. ......