Cheley v. State, 299 Ga. 88

Background

Victim Amber DeLoach was found in the trunk of her car after the car was set on fire; medical examiner concluded she had been sexually assaulted and strangled before the fire.
Surveillance video from a nearby gas station showed a man buying gasoline and a lighter around the time of the fire; investigators identified Cheley from the video.
Cheley gave two recorded statements (Oct. 4 and Oct. 18). DNA matched Cheley to material from DeLoach, and DeLoach’s DNA was found in Cheley’s home; other corroborating physical evidence linked Cheley to the scene.
Cheley was convicted of malice murder and other offenses; he appealed, raising four main trial errors (suppression rulings, exhibit admission, limits on cross-examining jailhouse informants, and failure to rebuke prosecutor).
The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed, finding no reversible error on the challenged rulings and that the evidence was legally sufficient.

Issues

Issue	Cheley’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Admissibility of statements (Oct. 4 & Oct. 18) — whether Cheley unequivocally invoked right to remain silent so subsequent questioning required suppression	Cheley: he repeatedly said he was “done,” “completely finished,” and thus invoked Miranda right to remain silent; later statements should be suppressed	State: Cheley’s remarks were ambiguous or were followed by breaks and reinitiation by defendant; investigators’ conduct did not elicit incriminating responses after ambiguous comments	Court: No error — statements were not an unequivocal invocation; where he reinitiated or breaks occurred, continuing statements admissible (Miranda/Innis analysis)
Admission of trunk photograph showing victim wrapped with personal items including a photo of an unidentified girl — whether prejudicial under OCGA § 24-4-403	Cheley: photograph’s depiction of a young girl was prejudicial and its probative value was substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice	State: photo demonstrated arrangement of items in trunk, relation to gasoline-soaked towel and body, and was probative of arson/fire staging	Court: No abuse of discretion — probative value on staging/positioning outweighed minimal risk of prejudice
Cross-examination of jailhouse informants about charges/possible sentences — scope of impeachment and bias inquiry	Cheley: should be allowed to ask informants about charges and potential sentences to show motive/bias	State: informants had not struck deals; their bias could be explored but not speculative punishment questions	Court: No error — defendant could probe motive and pending matters; asking informants to conjecture about punishment properly excluded
Failure to rebuke prosecutor for comment ("snitches get stitches") — whether court had duty to rebuke sua sponte under OCGA § 17-8-75	Cheley: prosecutor’s comment was improper and court should have rebuked prosecutor	State: trial court sustained objection; no rebuke requested so no sua sponte duty	Court: No error — court sustained objection and had no duty to rebuke absent request

Key Cases Cited

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (legal-sufficiency standard for convictions)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda rights and custodial interrogation)
Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (what constitutes functional equivalent of interrogation)
Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 (procedure for admissibility of confessions/Jackson–Denno hearing)
Malcolm v. State, 263 Ga. 369 (merger principles for related convictions)
Perez v. State, 283 Ga. 196 (clarity required to invoke right to remain silent)
Weaver v. State, 288 Ga. 540 (context can render ambiguous silence non-invocation)
Larry v. State, 266 Ga. 284 (defendant-initiated further dialogue undermines claim of invocation)
Ridley v. State, 290 Ga. 798 (statements indicating desire to go to jail not unequivocal invocation)
Hodo v. State, 272 Ga. 272 (limits on probing potential penalties for witnesses without deals)
Woodham v. State, 263 Ga. 580 (no duty to rebuke prosecutor under OCGA § 17-8-75 absent request)