Drake v. State, 296 Ga. 286

Victim James Woods, a taxi driver, was shot and killed in Savannah on Nov. 19, 2011; a witness saw a person searching the cab and fleeing. Cell records linked the final dispatch call to a number registered to Jamere Drake.
Police located Drake at work the morning after the shooting; he voluntarily accompanied officers to the station for interviews and initially gave shifting statements about his role and an associate, Jeremy Smith.
After several interviews (some video-recorded), Drake was arrested, Mirandized, and later admitted driving Smith downtown, dropping him off where Smith used Drake’s phone to call a cab, and picking Smith up after shots were fired.
Investigators recovered a 9mm gun and clothing from Smith’s home; ballistics matched shell casings from the cab to the recovered gun.
Drake was indicted, tried, acquitted of malice murder but convicted of felony murder, attempted armed robbery, and firearm-possession counts; he appealed, arguing Miranda and voluntariness errors; the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed.

Issue	Drake's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether Miranda warnings were required during Drake’s initial interview (custody question)	Officers interrogated Drake without Miranda before arrest; his statements should be suppressed	Drake was not "in custody" during the initial interview; he volunteered to come, was told he was not under arrest, not restrained, and free to leave	Not in custody; Miranda not required; initial pre-Miranda statements admissible
Whether post-Miranda statements were tainted by an earlier Miranda violation (Seibert claim)	Later confession inadmissible because it followed an unwarned confession	No Miranda violation occurred initially, so Seibert does not apply	Seibert claim fails because there was no initial Miranda violation
Whether Drake’s statements were involuntary due to police tactics (coercion/deception)	Interrogation tactics (pleas to tell truth, exaggerations, falsehoods, promises of "help") rendered statements involuntary	Techniques used (exhortation, limited deception) were lawful; no promises of leniency, no physical coercion or excessive pressure	Statements were voluntary under the totality of the circumstances and properly admitted
Sufficiency of the evidence for convictions	(Implicit) Statements and physical evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt	Combined testimonial, cell records, admissions, ballistics, and physical evidence support convictions	Evidence sufficient to sustain convictions under Jackson v. Virginia

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda warnings required during custodial interrogation)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (post-warning confession may be inadmissible when preceded by unwarned confession)
Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 (hearing standard for voluntariness of confessions)
Reaves v. State, 292 Ga. 582 (custody test: whether reasonable person would feel free to terminate interview)
Fennell v. State, 292 Ga. 834 (totality of circumstances governing voluntariness and custody analysis)
Sosniak v. State, 287 Ga. 279 (factors showing non-custodial interview: not restrained, told not under arrest, free to leave)
Durden v. State, 293 Ga. 89 (voluntary ride to station and being told not under arrest supports non-custody)
Daniel v. State, 285 Ga. 406 (police deception does not automatically render statements involuntary)
Thorpe v. State, 285 Ga. 604 (artifice and deception permissible if not designed to procure untrue statements)
State v. Ritter, 268 Ga. 108 (police deception that misleads about charges and induces hope of leniency can render confession involuntary)