State v. Robinson
326 Ga. App. 63
Ga. Ct. App.2014Background
- In August 2011, Savannah-Chatham police investigated armed robberies targeting Hispanic males; stakeouts at southern apartment complexes followed by Robinson’s arrest.
- Robinson and co-defendants were identified at a scene showup; a victim identified Robinson as involved.
- Robinson was interrogated at the police station; Miranda rights were given, rights waiver signed, and Robinson spoke without counsel.
- Robinson wrote a statement after offering to write it; detectives questioned him about it and he provided further details upon questioning.
- The detective told Robinson that cooperation could lead to help, but implied lighter punishment for cooperators; Robinson thereafter provided more information.
- The trial court found the officer’s statement induced Robinson to talk and suppressed the post-statement portion; the State appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the officer’s comment create a hope of benefit rendering the statement involuntary? | State argues the remark was mere encouragement to tell truth, not a promise of benefit. | Robinson contends the remark created hope of lighter punishment, rendering the statement involuntary. | Yes; the statement created a hope of benefit, so suppression was proper. |
| Was the ruling based on the totality of the circumstances under OCGA 24-8-824? | State contends totality supports voluntariness; the remark did not amount to benefit. | Robinson argues the totality shows inducement to talk beyond mere truth-telling. | Court applied totality, finding inducement present. |
| Should the evidence be reviewed de novo for legal questions and defer to trial court on credibility findings? | State relies on standard that trial court findings on disputed facts credited; law reviewed de novo. | Robinson acknowledges de novo review for legal questions; credibility determinations intact. | Yes; law reviewed de novo while credibility/undisputed facts upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Foster v. State, 283 Ga. 484 (Ga. 2008) (promises of benefit tied to charges are required for involuntariness)
- Gilliam v. State, 268 Ga. 690 (Ga. 1997) (mere encouragement to tell the truth not involuntary)
- Henry v. State, 265 Ga. 732 (Ga. 1995) (scope of hope of benefit limited; truthful cooperation not enough)
- Wilson v. State, 285 Ga. 224 (Ga. 2009) (admonition that cooperation may be considered does not render involuntary)
- Lee v. State, 270 Ga. 798 (Ga. 1999) (question about recording statements; not a promise of benefit)
- Taylor v. State, 274 Ga. 269 (Ga. 2001) (help yourself by telling the truth is not a hope of benefit)
- Fowler v. State, 246 Ga. 256 (Ga. 1980) (being told it would behoove him to tell truth did not render involuntary)
- Askea v. State, 153 Ga. App. 849 (Ga. App. 1980) (remark that telling the truth could help in court held to be inducement)
- Robinson v. State, 229 Ga. 14 (Ga. 1972) (cooperation could lead to favorable considerations)