State v. Brown
308 Ga. App. 480
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Brown was indicted on aggravated sodomy, aggravated child molestation, child molestation, and felony sexual battery.
- Before indictment, Brown confessed to investigators that he molested a four-year-old child and moved to suppress the statements as involuntary.
- During interrogation, Brown was questioned in a non-custodial setting first, then in a two-hour videotaped session with two male investigators.
- The officers told Brown he could go home after the interview, and later administered Miranda rights after Brown admitted placing the child's penis in his mouth.
- The trial court suppressed the confession, and the State appeals seeking reversal based on voluntariness under OCGA § 24-3-50.
- The Georgia Court of Appeals reverses, holding the statements were voluntary and not induced by a “hope of benefit.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether investigators’ statements created a “hope of benefit” that rendered the confession involuntary | Brown argues the interview conveyed a promise of no arrest if he cooperated. | State contends no coercive collateral promise was made and any hope was collateral. | No; statements did not induce the confession; coercive effect not shown. |
| Whether, in totality, the statements induced Brown to confess | Brown asserts the promised benefit influenced his admissions. | State asserts voluntariness under totality of circumstances. | No; confession voluntary under totality of circumstances. |
| Whether Brown’s prior familiarity with rights and the interview conditions affected voluntariness | Brown’s awareness and non-custodial start undermine voluntariness. | State argues education and understanding support voluntariness. | Relevant factors do not negate voluntariness; interview circumstances insufficient to compel exclusion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lynch v. State, 286 Ga. 98, 686 S.E.2d 244 (2009) (voluntariness and totality standard guidance)
- Vergara v. State, 283 Ga. 175, 657 S.E.2d 863 (2008) (nine-factor framework applied in voluntariness analysis)
- Jackson v. State, 280 Ga.App. 716, 634 S.E.2d 846 (2006) (collateral promises do not render admissible statements involuntary)
- Brown v. State, 278 Ga. 724, 609 S.E.2d 312 (2004) (collateral benefit promises not tied to charges/sentences render harmless statements)
- Riley v. State, 237 Ga. 124, 226 S.E.2d 922 (1976) (nine-factor test for voluntariness adopted)