Lester v. State
310 Ga. 81
Ga.2020Background
- Victim Lorrine Bozeman was shot to death on April 29, 2007; Layton K. Lester (her great‑nephew) was later indicted and tried separately for malice murder and related offenses and convicted by a jury.
- After the crime Lester was observed acting nervous and with cash; he and co‑defendant Shurrod Rich had been seen leaving together the night of the killing.
- Lester and his mother went to the police station; Lester (a minor) was Mirandized, initially interviewed with his mother present for ~1.5 hours, then interviewed further alone; he made multiple statements, including admitting he kicked in the door and that Rich shot Bozeman.
- Lester moved pretrial to suppress his custodial statements; after a Jackson‑Denno hearing the trial court found Lester was Mirandized, understood and voluntarily waived rights, and admitted video portions of the interview.
- After verdict it was discovered an alternate juror had been present during deliberations in violation of OCGA § 15‑12‑171; the court individually questioned jurors, found the alternate did not vote and jurors said they were not influenced, and denied a mistrial/new‑trial motion.
- Lester’s amended motion for new trial (raising the suppression and alternate‑juror claims) was denied; the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed, finding no reversible error.
Issues
| Issue | Lester's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of Riley factors / juvenile Miranda waiver | Trial court failed to apply or make specific findings under the nine Riley factors for juvenile waivers | Record shows both sides argued Riley; trial court found Mirandized, understood, and voluntarily waived; explicit factor‑by‑factor findings not required | Affirmed — trial court’s general voluntariness/waiver findings supported by record; no need to recite each Riley factor |
| Voluntariness / coercion from interrogation techniques (bringing in implicated persons) | Presence of King and Rogers and removal of mother coerced statements; interrogation methods improper | Temporary presence of others without threats and breaks in interview do not amount to coercive police activity; mother present for much of questioning and left voluntarily | Affirmed — statements voluntary under totality of circumstances; no coercive police activity shown |
| Requirement for explicit on‑the‑record factual findings on voluntariness | Trial court should make detailed, explicit findings on each aspect of voluntariness | Georgia law permits implicit credibility/factual findings; court must make an actual ruling but need not enumerate every factor on record | Affirmed — trial court made required ruling (Miranda advisal, understanding, waiver, voluntariness); implicit findings not clearly erroneous |
| Alternate juror present during deliberations / preservation and harmlessness | Presence of alternate during deliberations violated statute and presumptively harmed defendant; State must show no participation and no influence | Error acknowledged, but State showed alternate did not vote and jurors said they were not influenced; individual juror questioning supported harmlessness; claim preserved via amended motion for new trial | Affirmed — violation occurred but State rebutted presumption of harm; presence was harmless given juror testimony and lack of influence; claim preserved |
Key Cases Cited
- Riley v. State, 237 Ga. 124 (1976) (nine‑factor framework for evaluating juvenile Miranda waivers)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda warnings and waiver requirements)
- Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 (1964) (pretrial hearing required to determine voluntariness/admissibility of confessions)
- Butler v. State, 292 Ga. 400 (2013) (preponderance standard for voluntariness of custodial statements)
- Cain v. State, 306 Ga. 434 (2019) (implicit trial‑court findings on voluntariness can be upheld if not clearly erroneous)
- Brown v. State, 294 Ga. 677 (2014) (preferred general voluntariness findings trial courts should make when warranted)
- Newsome v. State, 259 Ga. 187 (1989) (harmlessness analysis where alternate juror was present but did not influence verdict)
- Johnson v. State, 235 Ga. 486 (1975) (discussing harm presumption when an alternate participates in deliberations)
- Eller v. State, 303 Ga. 373 (2018) (presumption of harm language; discussion of State’s burden to rebut)
- United States v. Allison, 481 F.2d 468 (5th Cir. 1973) (factors and evidentiary inquiry regarding alternate juror participation and influence)