Jupiter v. State, 707 S.E.2d 592

Jupiter and two cohorts robbed a grocery store on New Year's Day; they fled with cash and cigars, chased by two officers who stopped the getaway vehicle, while Jupiter escaped.
After the stop, Jupiter's mother arrived near the crime scene; officers questioned her and obtained consent to search her home, which was under a quarter-mile from the stop.
A black shirt and dark pants were found inside an exterior crawlspace at Jupiter's home, described as damp and recently worn, with no webs suggesting long-term concealment.
Jupiter moved to suppress the evidence from the home search, arguing lack of standing, invalid consent, and that the evidence was the only corroboration for co‑conspirator Timmons.
The trial court denied suppression; the court ruled the mother had common authority to consent, and the consent was voluntary under the totality of circumstances.
On appeal, the court affirmed the convictions, rejecting the sufficiency challenge to corroborate Timmons's testimony and finding the closing-argument issue waived.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the mother's consent to search valid?	Jupiter lacked standing; consent invalid absent reasonable suspicion.	Mother lacked authority or voluntariness; encounter unlawful tainted consent.	Consent valid; common authority and voluntariness established.
Was there sufficient corroboration to support Jupiter's conviction beyond Timmons's testimony?	Clothing at the mother's home did not independently connect Jupiter to the crime.	Corroboration insufficient to support participation beyond accomplice testimony.	Yes; clothing matched suspect descriptions and proximity plus recent discard near the crawlspace sufficed.
Did the trial court err in overruling objections to closing argument (Allen charge) not properly preserved on appeal?	Improper pre-deliberation Allen charge used during closing.	Issue not preserved by Jupiter due to lack of record joinder with co-defendant.	Issue waived; no substantial error.

Black v. State, 281 Ga.App. 40, 635 S.E.2d 568 (2006) (standing to suppress requires violation of defendant's rights; common authority for consent)
Smith v. State, 264 Ga. 87, 441 S.E.2d 241 (1994) (joint access or control authorizes consent to search premises)
Pruitt v. State, 263 Ga.App. 814, 589 S.E.2d 591 (2003) (first-tier versus second-tier encounters analyzed by totality of circumstances)
Singleton v. State, 231 Ga.App. 694, 500 S.E.2d 411 (1998) (trial court has broad discretion over closing argument control)
O'Neal v. State, 273 Ga.App. 688, 616 S.E.2d 479 (2005) (encounter classification and legality of stops and searches are assessed totality of circumstances)