BUDHANI v. the STATE., 812 S.E.2d 105

Defendant Mahemood Budhani was convicted of three counts of selling XLR11 (a Schedule I synthetic marijuana) on three dates and one count of possession with intent to distribute after three controlled buys and a December search of his workplace that recovered additional XLR11 packages.
Packages bore labels stating “not for human consumption”; defendant admitted the substances were XLR11.
After arrest, Budhani received Miranda warnings, signed a waiver, and gave a recorded custodial statement; police told him they would inform the district attorney of any cooperation but repeatedly said they could not promise reduced charges or sentence.
Budhani moved to suppress his custodial statement as involuntary (induced by promises of benefit) and filed a general demurrer arguing the indictment failed to allege statutory exemptions inapplicable to XLR11.
During voir dire, a prospective juror expressed potential racial bias and reluctance to serve; the trial court denied defense motion to strike for cause and defense used a peremptory strike.
Trial court denied the suppression motion, denied the demurrer, and a jury convicted on all counts; Budhani appealed raising three issues (indictment sufficiency, juror strike, voluntariness of statement).

Issue	Budhani's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Indictment sufficiency	Indictment failed to allege inapplicability of statutory exemptions to XLR11, rendering it void	Indictment sufficiently alleged sale/possession of a “Schedule I controlled substance,” which by definition excludes covered exemptions	Court: indictment valid; alleging a substance is a “Schedule I controlled substance” inherently negates the statutory exemptions
Juror challenge for cause	Trial court erred by denying strike for cause after juror admitted racial bias and inability to be impartial	Trial court properly assessed demeanor and sincerity; juror never said he had fixed opinion; defense used peremptory strike	Court: no manifest abuse of discretion in denying strike for cause; defense’s peremptory was available but no reversible error
Voluntariness of custodial statement	Statement involuntary because police promised benefit (reduced/eliminated charges or sentence) in exchange for cooperation	Officers merely said they would report cooperation to the district attorney and explicitly declined to promise outcomes; recorded interrogation and signed waiver contradict promise claim	Court: statement voluntary and admissible; no clear error in trial court’s credibility findings

Jackson v. Virginia, [citation="443 U.S. 307"] (establishes standard for viewing evidence in light most favorable to the verdict)
Miranda v. Arizona, [citation="384 U.S. 436"] (Miranda warning requirement for custodial interrogation)
Jackson v. State, [citation="301 Ga. 137"] (indictment must allege essential elements; guidance on sufficiency)
State v. Chulpayev, [citation="296 Ga. 764"] (defining “hope of benefit” as promises of reduced punishment)
Hyde v. State, [citation="275 Ga. 693"] (standard for excusing jurors for cause; deference to trial court’s demeanor findings)
Leigh v. State, [citation="223 Ga. App. 726"] (telling prosecution about cooperation is not per se a promise producing hope of benefit)