582 S.E.2d 7 | Ga. Ct. App. | 2003
A grand jury indicted Jerome Gardner for the offenses of aggravated assault, aggravated sodomy, rape, two counts of burglary of a dwelling, and three counts of armed robbery. The jury found him guilty of aggravated assault, both counts of burglary of a dwelling, and two counts of armed robbery. The jury found him not guilty of one count of armed robbery, and the jury was hung as to the aggravated sodomy and rape counts. Gardner appeals, alleging the trial court erred in allowing the state to introduce his custodial statement to police because he had not been read his Miranda rights. Although we find the trial court erred in admitting the statement, we find that the error was harmless because the record establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that it did not contribute to the guilty verdict.
The record shows that a detective secured an arrest warrant on Gardner regarding an unrelated case in Illinois. He served Gardner with the warrant and took him into custody. The detective asked Gardner if he knew why. the police were there, and Gardner responded, “yes, the warrant out of Illinois.” The detective then
Gardner contends the trial court erred in allowing the state to introduce the statement he made while he was in custody without being read his Miranda rights. The Fifth Amendment requires the exclusion of any statement made by an accused during custodial interrogation, unless he has been advised of his rights and has voluntarily waived those rights.
The term “interrogation” under Miranda refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.
However, even though Gardner’s response should have been excluded because the detective’s statements constituted improper interrogation and the officer should have known they were likely to elicit an incriminating response, the admission of the response was harmless error under the circumstances of this case.
Judgment affirmed.
See Franks v. State, 268 Ga. 238, 239 (486 SE2d 594) (1997).
See Hightower v. State, 272 Ga. 42, 43 (526 SE2d 836) (2000).
See Franks, supra at 240; Cottingham v. State, 206 Ga. App. 197, 201 (4) (424 SE2d 794) (1992).
See Franks, supra at 241-242.
Compare Walton v. State, 267 Ga. 713, 717 (4) (482 SE2d 330) (1997).
See Franks, supra.
See Mika v. State, 256 Ga. App. 546, 547 (2) (568 SE2d 818) (2002).
Mika, supra.