Rаlph High, appellant here, was tried and found guilty of murder by a jury in the Fulton County Superior Court and sentenced to life imprisonment. After a motion for new trial was overruled he appealed his conviction to this court. Held:
1. Appellant’s main сontention on appeal concerns the voluntariness of a cоnfession given by him some ten hours after his arrest. Appellant contends that he is а drug addict and that the only reason he made and signed the confession was tо secure treatment at the hospital for withdrawal symptoms brought about by forсed deprivation of heroin as a result of his incarceration.
A Jackson-Denno hearing was conducted to determine whether the defendant’s cоnfession was voluntary. After hearing evidence, the trial judge came to the conclusion that the defendant’s confession was voluntary and admitted it into evidence. The defendant complains that "The trial court erred in allowing the confession to be introduced and admitted into evidence because thе state did not meet the burden of proving such confession was made without the рromise of reward. . .”
*154
Before making any determination as to the merit of appellant’s contention we must determine what standard of proof the state must meet in proving that the confession was voluntary. The United States Supreme Court in Lego v. Twomey,
We now review the evidence presented at the Jackson-Dеnno hearing in the case sub judice in view of this established standard. The defendant, Rаlph High, contends that he was suffering from withdrawal symptoms and signed the confession only on a promise that he would receive immediate medical attention. On the other hand, the prosecution introduced witnesses present while the сonfession was taken who testified that the defendant was merely nervous and upset. We stated in
Johnson v. State,
2. Having decided that the confession was properly admitted into evidence in this case, appellant’s enumerations on the genеral grounds are without merit.
3. The appellant contends that the trial court erred *155 in excluding certain medical records that he wished tо have in evidence to show the time and date the appellant was admitted into the hospital. Other testimony by both the state’s witnesses and the appellant established the time and date of admittal and the information derived from thе hospital reports would only have been cumulative. There was no error in excluding these reports.
4. The appellant contends that several statements made by the prosecuting attorney and the trial judge were inflammatory and unduly prejudiced the jurors. We have carefully reviewed these statements and find no reversible error.
Judgment affirmed.