State v. Madison
311 Ga. App. 31
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Lawrence Madison was indicted on multiple counts of child molestation, sexual battery, public indecency, and aggravated sexual battery arising from alleged acts involving W.M.
- Madison moved to suppress two video recordings made by W.M. in Madison's private law-office, arguing they were made without his consent.
- The trial court granted the suppression, ruling the recordings were made in a private place and without Madison’s consent.
- The State timely appealed, contending the recordings should be admissible under OCGA § 16-11-62(2) when read with § 16-11-66(a).
- At issue is whether consent of all persons observed is required for recordings, and whether the participant exception applies to video recordings.
- The appellate court ultimately affirmed the suppression, concluding the recordings fell outside the permissible scope under the statute and the participant exception does not apply to these video recordings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does OCGA 16-11-62(2) permit the recording if one party consents, under the participant exception? | State argues Gavin-like interpretation allows participant exception via 16-11-66(a) to render recordings admissible. | Madison argues Gavin does not apply to video recordings; no consent of all observed supports suppression. | Suppression affirmed; participant exception does not render these videos admissible. |
| Is the private-place requirement of OCGA 16-11-62(2) satisfied here? | State contends the private office context supports application of the statute. | Madison contributed to the ruling by acquiescing to the recording in a private place. | Suppression affirmed; the private-place requirement applies. |
| Would the recordings be admissible if they captured audible or discernible oral communications? | State implies possible admission if communications fall within exceptions. | Madison's position is unaffected unless audible communications fit the statutory exceptions. | Not decided; left for future consideration. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gavin v. State, 292 Ga.App. 402 (2008) (participant exception limited; no exclusion for video recordings)
- Hill v. State, 306 Ga.App. 663 (2010) (OCGA 16-11-62(1) vs (a) exceptions discussed)
- Fetty v. State, 268 Ga. 365 (1997) (OCGA 16-11-62(1) privacy/consent principles)
- Holcomb v. State, 268 Ga. 100 (1997) (principles on evidentiary admissibility and suppression)
- English v. State, 288 Ga.App. 436 (2007) (affirmation of judgment on any correct basis)
- Tate v. State, 264 Ga. 53 (1994) (trial court deference in suppression rulings)