Appellant, Byran Ashley Parker, was convicted in Douglas County of murder and rape. Parker was sentenced to death on the recommendation of the jury, which found that the murder was committed while the offеnder was engaged in the commission of the offenses of rape and kidnapping with bodily injury and that the murder was outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman in that it in *168 volved torture, depravity of mind, and an aggravаted battery to the victim. See OCGA § 17-10-30 (b) (2) and (b) (7). For reason discussed below, we remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings regarding the admissibility of Parker’s statements.
1. Prior to trial, Parker filed a motion challenging the admissibility of his confession (s) on Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment grounds. He alleged that the statements were involuntary, being the product of coercion and having been induced by promises of benefit. Sеe, e.g.,
Minnesota v.
Murphy,_U. S._(104 SC 1136, 79 LE2d 409) (1984); OCGA §§ 24-3-50 and 24-3-51;
State v. Summers,
After a hearing, the trial court, without explanation, simply denied the motion.
“Unless clearly errоneous, a trial court’s findings as to factual determinations and credibility relating to the admissibility of a cоnfession will be upheld on appeal. [Cits.]”
In other respects, the court’s rulings are unclear.
1
We find it necessary, therefore, to remand this case for clarification, after further hearings, if necessary,
2
as to the admissibility of any statements or confessions made by Parker.
Berry v. State,
supra;
Cofield v. State,
*169 2. In his fifth enumeration, Parker complains that during recesses from the lengthy voir dire proceedings, he was placed into a holding cell while prospective jurors stood in the hallwаy, watching.
In view of threats that had been made on Parker’s life, the trial court did not err by attempting to ensure the defendant’s safety.
Allen v. State,
3. As to enumeration 6, in view of the remedial action taken by the trial court, we find no error in its refusal to disqualify four jury panеls on the basis of a comment made by one prospective juror, which was given in response to a defense question seeking to ascertain what the prospective juror knew.
Wilson v. State,
4. Contrary to Parker’s contentions in enumeration seven, no error occurred when a photograph of the victim’s body was admitted in evidence.
Felker v. State,
5. In his ninth enumeration, Parker contends the evidence is insufficient to suрport the conviction for rape. We find that Parker’s admission that he raped the victim, although subsеquently retracted, was sufficiently corroborated by the position of the body, the lack of clothing, and the testimony of the medical examiner concerning the trauma to the vaginal area, sо that a rational trier of fact could find from the evidence presented that Parker was guilty of rape. Although not addressed on appeal by the parties, we also find that the evidence supports the murder conviction.
Jackson v. Virginia,
6. By way of a supplemental brief, Parker has added enumerations of error numbered fifteen and sixteen, and has submitted argument, for the first time, in support of fourteenth enumerаtion. See Rule IV (B) (2) of the Unified Appeal Procedure, 252 Ga. A-13 et seq. Because this case must be remanded in any event, we will defer our consideration of these enumerations until such time as the case may reappear before us. Nor will we address at this time the remaining enumerations of error, which affect only the sentencing phase of the trial. Cofield v. State, supra.
7. Accordingly, the case is remanded for рroper findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the matters discussed in Division 1 of this opinion. If it is detеrmined that a new trial is unnecessary, then, upon completion of the proceedings on remаnd, the case shall be presented again to this court for resolution of any remaining issues and any additional issues that might be presented by the judgment on remand.
Remanded for further proceedings.
Notes
Trial transcript at 273. The court’s comment about the search may be viewed as a finding that the search was not improper, or it may just as easily be cоnstrued as an erroneous finding that it made no difference.
Devier v. State,
supra. See also transcript at 259. If Parkеr had been coerced into taking a polygraph examination, then subsequent admissions might be irredeemably tainted. See, e.g.,
Oregon v. Elstad,
470 U. S._(105 SC 1285, 84 LE2d 222) (1985);
Smith v. State,
The trial court circumscribed to some extent the evidentiary presentation by both sides regarding the circumstances leading to the first confession.