Williams v. State, s. 43720
| Decision Date | 15 January 1987 |
| Docket Number | 43721,Nos. 43720,s. 43720 |
| Citation | 351 S.E.2d 454,256 Ga. 609 |
| Parties | WILLIAMS v. The STATE (Two Cases). |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Murray M. Silver, Murray M. Silver, P.C., Atlanta, for Danny williams.
Robert F. Mumford, Dist. Atty., Conyers, Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., Eddie Snelling, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Danny Williams was convicted of the murder of Wayne Ingram. He was tried by a jury and found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment. He appeals raising issues of the legality of the search for the murder weapon and the propriety of the instructions to the jury. 1
On May 6, 1985, the defendant's cousin, Patrick Williams, and a friend, Michael Allen, visited the defendant at the defendant's father's apartment. During the visit, Patrick Williams mentioned to the defendant that the victim had taken some marijuana from Patrick several months earlier but had subsequently paid for it. On May 8, 1985, the defendant, Patrick Williams and Michael Allen, went to a birthday party for the victim. At trial several witnesses testified that the defendant wore a shoulder holster and had a weapon at the party, and that the defendant stated the gun was for protection, that "his family meant a whole lot to him and that nobody going to mess with Patrick." The defendant, Patrick Williams and Michael Allen left the party for Michael Allen's home after they had been requested to do so because of their drunken and loud behavior. On arrival at his house, Michael Allen went in to change clothes and returned to find the victim, who lived next door to him, in the car with the defendant and Patrick Williams. The defendant drove the three other men to the Busy Bee Car Wash. Patrick Williams and Michael Allen testified that the defendant ordered the victim out of the car, and, after arguing with him and threatening him, shot him once in the arm and once in the head. On his arrest, the defendant denied knowing the victim but acknowledged that he had attended the party for the victim and admitted owning a .45 Colt satin finish weapon. That weapon was subsequently discovered at the defendant's father's apartment where the defendant was residing. The medical examiner testified that the victim died as a result of the gunshot wound to the head.
1. The defendant contends that the search resulting in the seizure of the gun was illegal and therefore the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress. The defendant was arrested when he returned to the apartment and the premises were secured until a search warrant had been obtained, at which time the weapon was seized. Defendant argues, primarily based on the testimony of the defendant's wife, that the officers discovered the weapon only by conducting an illegal general search, beyond the scope of that authorized by the arrest warrant prior to obtaining the search warrant. However, we are bound to accept the trial court's decision on questions of fact and credibility at a suppression hearing unless clearly erroneous, Woodruff v. State, 233 Ga. 840, 844(3), 213 S.E.2d 689 (1975), and the testimony of the police officers involved supports the trial court's finding that the officers discovered...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'Keefe v. State
...the trial court's decision on questions of fact and credibility at a suppression hearing unless clearly erroneous." Williams v. State, 256 Ga. 609, 610, 351 S.E.2d 454. We have reviewed the evidence and the trial court's ruling, and do not find the ruling to be clearly erroneous. See Fortne......
-
Williams v. State
...hearing must be accepted unless clearly erroneous. Santone v. State, 187 Ga.App. 789, 790, 371 S.E.2d 428; accord Williams v. State, 256 Ga. 609, 610, 351 S.E.2d 454. We will now proceed to review the suppression hearing transcript to ascertain to the extent possible the contents of the aff......
-
State v. Wesson
...to named informants, i.e., those informants whose identities have been disclosed to the magistrate. See id.; Williams v. State, 256 Ga. 609, 610(1), 351 S.E.2d 454 (1987); Victrum v. State, 203 Ga.App. 377, 379(2), 416 S.E.2d 740 (1992); Midura v. State, 183 Ga.App. 523, 525(4), 359 S.E.2d ......
-
Williams v. State, A92A0083
...to accept the trial court's decision on questions of fact and credibility ... unless clearly erroneous, ..." Williams v. State, 256 Ga. 609, 610(1), 351 S.E.2d 454 (1987). It is not certain what the court found in this regard, although the court did state: "I do not feel that the officer wa......