Fitzgerald appeals his conviction of aiding his son to escape from the Wilcox County jail on October 10, 1981.
1. Appellant contends that his oral statement made while in custody was inadmissible because it was not voluntary and because it was the product of an illegal arrest warrant. At the hearing pursuant to Jackson v. Denno,
The state has the burden of proving voluntariness by a preponderance of the evidence, Lego v. Twomey,
Appellant does not dispute the existence of probable cause for his arrest; rather, he contends that the arrest warrant was deficient because the averring officer failed to indicate the basis of his information and its reliability. Appellant, however, was actually arrested the day before the warrant was obtained. OCGA § 17-4-20 (Code Ann. § 27-207) allows a warrantless arrest by a law enforcement officer “if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge, if the offender is endeavoring to escape... or for other cause if there is likely to be a failure of justice for want of a judicial officer to issue a warrant.” The sheriff had questioned the appellant about the escape but had not decided to arrest him until subsequent investigation. The appellant thus knew that he was under investigation, and under these circumstances we believe the sheriff, once he found probable cause for arrest, was justified in proceeding directly to arrest the appellant without first obtaining a warrant. See
Chaney v. State,
*308
2. Appellant asserts that the trial court erred in denying his oral motion to dismiss the indictment made at the close of the state’s case, on the grounds that the indictment was based upon an allegedly deficient arrest warrant and not because of any defect of the indictment itself. There is no merit to this contention. Once the grand jury returns an indictment, the state is not required to make a further showing of probable cause, and the evidence reviewed by the grand jury in finding a true bill is not subject to inquiry.
Anderson v. State,
3. Appellant also contends that the trial court erred in allowing the sheriff to read the statement of the alleged accomplice, over defense counsel’s objection that it was inadmissible hearsay, and in denying the defense counsel’s request to examine the written statement (which was not introduced as evidence by the state). The accomplice, who pled guilty prior to appellant’s trial, testified at trial to the same matters contained in this statement which inculpated the appellant. The sheriff was asked by the state to read the statement to show what information he had related to the justice of the peace in obtaining the arrest warrants.
OCGA § 24-3-52 (Code Ann. § 38-414) provides that “[t]he confession of one joint offender or conspirator made after the enterprise is ended shall be admissible only against himself.” The out-of-court statement of the joint offender thus was not probative evidence of the appellant’s guilt. This statute, however, does not prohibit a joint offender from testifying at trial as a witness for the state.
Hill v. State,
We also find no error in the denial of the oral in-court request of appellant’s counsel to examine the written statement. The entire statement was read by the sheriff, and appellant has made no showing or assertion that the lack of the written statement impaired his defense so as to deprive him of a fair trial.
Jackson v. State,
4. Appellant’s assertion that the trial court erred in admitting
*309
into evidence the crowbar, hacksaw and blades, and a set of bolt cutters is without merit. The only objection to the admission of these exhibits made at trial was that a chain of custody had not been shown. There is no requirement, however, of establishing a chain of custody for a “distinct physical object that can be identified and differentiated by the senses on observation.”
Starks v. State,
5. In contending that there was insufficient admissible evidence to sustain his conviction, appellant primarily argues that the testimony of his joint offender/accomplice was not sufficiently corroborated. There are several guidelines with which to determine the extent of corroboration necessary: (1) the accomplice’s testimony does not have to be corroborated in every material part; (2) it is not required that the corroboration be sufficient to support a conviction; (3) the corroborating circumstances need not be enough to amount to another witness; (4) slight evidence of corroboration connecting the defendant with the crime is sufficient; and (5) the sufficiency of corroboration is a matter for the jury.
Quaid v. State,
The accomplice testified that he and the appellant had taken hacksaw blades to the appellant’s incarcerated son, and that the appellant had slipped a crowbar to his son through the cell window. He also testified that the appellant had claimed to have driven his escapee son a short distance out of town. Corroborating evidence included the testimony of a hardware store clerk about the appellant’s visit to that store looking for hacksaw blades sturdy enough to cut burglar bars, as well as the hacksaw blades and crowbar actually discovered in the ventilation duct of the cell from which appellant’s son escaped. Other inmates at the jail at the time of the escape testified that the appellant and his son were together in the jail hall; one inmate stated that the appellant gave him some of his son’s personal effects as they departed. Further, appellant’s own statement that he had taken hacksaw blades to his son corroborated the accomplice’s testimony. In short, there was sufficient
*310
corroboration of the accomplice’s testimony.
Hill v. State,
supra, and the evidence adduced by the state was sufficient to enable any rational finder of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant aided the escape of his son. Jackson v. Virginia,
6. Appellant also asserts that the trial court erred in restricting his presentation of any evidence of jail conditions as excuse or mitigation for escape. However, both the Supreme Court and this court have expressly disallowed consideration of jail conditions as excuse or justification for escape.
Grimes v. Burch,
7. Appellant contends that the trial court wrongfully curtailed his cross-examination of the sheriff, regarding the sheriffs interrogation of the accomplice and the sheriffs knowledge of the reading of the Miranda rights to the appellant by the GBI agent on October 12,1981. During the Jackson v. Denno hearing to determine the voluntariness of the oral statement given by the appellant on October 14,1981, counsel for appellant asked the sheriff whether he had questioned the accomplice when he first approached the appellant and the accomplice in the course of investigating the escape. The trial court sustained the state’s objection that this inquiry was irrelevant and immaterial to the specific issue of voluntariness of the appellant’s statement. Counsel for appellant also asked the sheriff if he knew where the GBI agent obtained the form or paper from which the agent read the Miranda rights to the appellant, and the sheriff responded in the negative. The trial court prevented appellant’s counsel from repeating the question, on the grounds of repetitiveness, and he advised counsel that he could call the GBI agent as a witness if he wished to pursue the matter.
Appellant, of course, had the right to a thorough and sifting cross-examination of any witness called against him. OCGA § 24-9-64 (Code Ann. § 38-1705). However, the extent of cross-examination can be curtailed if the inquiry is not relevant or material, and such restriction lies within the discretion of the trial court which will not be disturbed on appeal unless manifestly abused.
Page v. State,
8. Appellant’s remaining enumerations of error are without merit.
Judgment affirmed.