Jupiter v. State
308 Ga. App. 386
Ga. Ct. App.2011Background
- Jupiter and two cohorts robbed a grocery store on New Year’s Day 2009, taking cash and cigars after jumping the counter; they fled in a car pursued by police, with Timmons captured and Jupiter escaping.
- Police later stopped the fleeing vehicle; clothing linked to the suspects was discarded nearby; Jupiter’s mother agreed to a home search near the stop and officers found damp, muddy clothing in a crawlspace at the mother’s residence.
- Jupiter’s mother gave consent to search the home; officers testified consent was voluntary and based on totality of circumstances, including proximity to the crime and a prior observed mask near the vehicle.
- The State searched and found clothing that could tie Jupiter to the robbery; Jupiter moved to suppress the evidence from the home search, arguing lack of standing and illegality of consent.
- The trial court denied the suppression motion, denied a directed verdict due to corroboration of Timmons’s testimony, and overruled an objection to a closing argument—issues Jupiter appeals; the appellate court affirms all convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppression of evidence from mother’s home | Jupiter contends the consent was invalid and the stop/encounter improper | State contends consent was voluntary and authorities had common authority | Consent voluntary; search valid; corroboration adequate |
| Directed verdict—sufficiency of corroboration | Jupiter argues clothing evidence did not independently corroborate his involvement | State argues circumstantial corroboration from clothing descriptions and proximity suffices | Sufficient corroboration supports verdict |
| Allen charge/closing argument preservation | Issue not preserved due to lack of transcript and non‑joining objection | Objection raised by co‑defendant preserved issue for appeal | Issue waived; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Black v. State, 281 Ga. App. 40 (Ga. App. 2006) (consent must be voluntary and encounters lawful to validate search)
- Fisher v. State, 293 Ga. App. 228 (Ga. App. 2008) (three-tier encounters; consent validity depends on lawfulness of stop)
- Smith v. State, 264 Ga. 87 (Ga. 1994) (common authority over premises can authorize search)
- Pruitt v. State, 263 Ga. App. 814 (Ga. App. 2003) (first-tier vs second-tier encounters; totality of circumstances)
- Walker v. State, 299 Ga. App. 788 (Ga. App. 2009) (consent to search must be voluntary and not the product of unlawful detention)