Lucas v. the State
331 Ga. App. 455
Ga. Ct. App.2015Background
- In January 2009 two men (Patel and Prak) were fatally shot in an apartment-complex parking lot; three suspects (Lucas, Allen, Norwood) were later indicted. Allen and Norwood were convicted of felony murder; Lucas was convicted only of attempted armed robbery and attempted purchase/possession of marijuana as a party and acquitted of murder.
- Witnesses placed two Hispanic men and two Black men at the scene; one witness identified Lucas from a photo lineup as the Black man following the victims. Other witnesses observed Allen and Norwood assaulting and shooting the victims and attempting to access a black Acura that later contained large packaged bags smelling of marijuana.
- Police detained Lucas about 5–10 minutes after the shooting; he gave a recorded statement in which he said at one point, “I don’t want to hear no more. Take me to jail,” but later confessed that he acted as a lookout after officers and a familiar officer (Thrasher) continued interviewing him.
- Lucas moved to suppress his custodial statements arguing (1) he unequivocally invoked his right to remain silent, and (2) his confession was induced by promises/hope of benefit. The trial court denied suppression; Lucas appealed.
- Lucas also moved for directed verdict on Count 16 (attempt to possess marijuana); the motion was denied and he was convicted. He argued the State failed to prove the substance in the car was marijuana and thus the attempt failed.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed: it held Lucas’s invocation of silence was equivocal, the confession was not improperly induced, and evidence sufficed to convict him of attempt as a party to the drug-possession scheme.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lucas unequivocally invoked Miranda right to remain silent so his subsequent confession must be suppressed | Lucas: his statement "I don't want to hear no more. Take me to jail" was a clear invocation requiring officers to stop questioning | State: the statement was equivocal in context; Lucas continued to speak and officers were not required to stop; subsequent talk with known officer produced confession | Court: invocation was equivocal; no suppression for invocation ground |
| Whether Lucas’s confession was involuntary because it was induced by promises/hope of benefit | Lucas: detectives suggested lighter punishment ("five years do two or 60 years") and urged him to say Allen was shooter — inducing confession | State: officers only explained consequences and urged truth; they did not promise leniency or a particular charge | Court: statements were admonitions to tell truth, not promises; confession voluntary; even if error, admission was cumulative and harmless |
| Whether evidence was insufficient for attempted possession (directed verdict) because the State did not prove the substance was marijuana | Lucas: State failed to show the trunk substance was actual marijuana; thus attempt conviction fails | State: attempt does not require proof of all elements of underlying crime; defendants planned and took substantial steps to obtain "pounds of weed" and focused on the Acura where substance was found | Court: substantial-step evidence (planning, procuring weapon, lookout, attempts to enter Acura) supported attempt conviction as party; proof substance was marijuana not required for attempt conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Francis v. State, 296 Ga. 190 (discussion of voluntariness and Jackson–Denno review standard)
- Ridley v. State, 290 Ga. 798 (clarifies requirement that invocation of right to silence be clear and unequivocal)
- Turner v. State, 287 Ga. 793 (equivocal invocations do not require officers to cease questioning)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Preston v. State, 282 Ga. 210 (admonitions to tell truth do not invalidate a confession)
- Valentine v. State, 289 Ga. App. 60 (officers' statements of possible sentencing do not necessarily show inducement of confession)
- Phillips v. State, 285 Ga. 213 (harmlessness of admission when cumulative of other admissible testimony)
- Frazier v. State, 278 Ga. 297 (custodial statement harmless if it merely repeats prior admissions to others)
- Davis v. State, 281 Ga. App. 855 (attempt defined as substantial step; need not prove all elements of underlying crime)
- Massey v. State, 267 Ga. App. 482 (acts constituting substantial step toward drug possession)
- Drake v. State, 266 Ga. App. 463 (conduct before/during/after supports aiding-and-abetting in armed robbery/attempt)
- Watson v. State, 256 Ga. App. 789 (attempt liability when substance turns out not to be illegal but defendant believed it was)
- Durfee v. State, 221 Ga. App. 211 (attempt sustained despite “sham” drugs provided by informant)