Thompson v. State
313 Ga. App. 844
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Thompson was tried for burglary and sentenced as a recidivist after a jury verdict.
- Before trial, Thompson moved to suppress statements made to law enforcement without Miranda warnings; the trial court denied the motion.
- The State’s investigation traced the burglary to a vacant daycare center where items including vacuums were missing.
- Witnesses placed Thompson near the daycare with vacuums, and another witness saw him at a gas station selling vacuums.
- Thompson admitted owning a crack pipe and drug paraphernalia; an officer later questioned him about the vacuums, yielding additional statements.
- The trial court found Thompson not to be in custody for Miranda purposes; the court denied suppression, Thompson was convicted, and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Thompson was in custody requiring Miranda warnings | Thompson contends he was in custody when questioned about the vacuums. | State contends he was not in custody and warnings were not required. | Custody found; Miranda warnings required; conviction reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Powell v. State, 310 Ga.App. 144, 712 S.E.2d 139 (Ga. App. 2011) (standard for appellate review of suppression ruling)
- Sosniak v. State, 287 Ga. 279, 695 S.E.2d 604 (Ga. 2010) (custody assessment and Miranda applicability)
- Campbell v. State, 313 Ga.App. 436, 721 S.E.2d 649 (Ga. App. 2011) (on-point guidance for suppression / admissibility)
- Lucas v. State, 265 Ga.App. 242, 593 S.E.2d 707 (Ga. App. 2004) (on-scene questioning and custody considerations)
- Timmreck v. State, 285 Ga. 39, 673 S.E.2d 198 (Ga. 2009) (limits of on-scene questioning without custodial risk)