Wilson v. State, 325 Ga. App. 859

On Aug. 6, 2009, police were flagged to a parked Toyota Camry; officers found Wilson sleeping in the back seat with a small baggie of marijuana in plain view.
Officers awakened Wilson, asked what he was doing, and Wilson replied he was selling drugs; officers then had him exit the vehicle and arrested him after finding crack rocks on a mirror and cash/baggies in the car.
Wilson was charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and possession of marijuana; he moved to suppress his statements and later moved for a new trial after conviction.
The trial court denied the suppression motion (finding Wilson was not in custody for Miranda purposes when he made the statements) and denied the new-trial motion.
On appeal, Wilson argued (1) the trial judge improperly commented on witness credibility in violation of OCGA § 17-8-57 during closing argument, and (2) his custodial statements should have been suppressed because he was subject to custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings.
The Court of Appeals reversed: it found the trial court improperly intimated an opinion on an officer’s credibility (requiring reversal), and it upheld the denial of the suppression motion (finding no custodial interrogation before arrest).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial judge’s admonition amounted to an improper comment on witness credibility under OCGA § 17-8-57	Wilson: judge’s instruction to jury to disregard defense counsel’s assertions that the officer lied constituted expressing belief in officer’s credibility	State: judge’s remarks were a permissible admonition to control counsel and cure any prejudice	Held: Reversed — judge’s admonition clearly intimated the court’s opinion that the officer was credible; violation of § 17-8-57 requires new trial and is not cured by instruction
Whether Wilson’s pre-arrest statements should be suppressed as elicited during custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings	Wilson: his questioning was custodial interrogation; Miranda warnings required before questioning	State: questioning (“what was going on?”) was non-custodial and not the functional equivalent of interrogation	Held: Affirmed — trial court’s finding that Wilson was not in custody when he spoke was not clearly erroneous; officers’ inquiry did not constitute custodial interrogation requiring Miranda

Callaham v. State, 305 Ga. App. 626 (2010) (trial-court comments on witness credibility can violate OCGA § 17-8-57)
Chumley v. State, 282 Ga. 855 (2007) (jury may be influenced by judge’s expressions implying witness credibility)
Murphy v. State, 290 Ga. 459 (2012) (OCGA § 17-8-57 compliance is mandatory; violation requires reversal)
Jones v. State, 258 Ga. App. 229 (2002) (custody/Miranda analysis: whether reasonable person would view detention as non-temporary)