Aftеr a jury trial, Appellant Michael James Turner was found guilty of malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime. Treating the felony murder verdict as surplusage, the trial court sentenced Appellant to life imprisonment for malice murder, a concurrent term of twenty years imprisonment for the aggravated assault offense and a consecutive term of five years for the weapons charge. Appellant appeals after the denial of a motion for new trial. *
1. Construed most strongly in support оf the verdicts, the evidence shows that, in the early morning of July 12, 2007, Appellant confronted his wife Teresa Buckner Turner in her car on her way to work. During the course of an argument, Appellant shot Ms. Turner and then fled from the scene. Ms. Turner’s body was found in Spalding County shortly afterwards by the police, who were eventually directed to her current address, at which they found Appellant. After being nоtified of his wife’s death, Appellant accompanied the police to the Spalding County Sheriffs Office and was placed in an interview room. After approximately eight hours of questioning, Appellant made oral and written statements confessing to the shooting and killing of his wife. In his confession, Appellant admitted to using a six-shot .38 Magnum revolver. A medical examination confirmеd that the victim was shot six times, and four bullets removed from the victim were determined to be fired from the same .38 Magnum revolver. After his confession, Appellant returned to the scene of the crime with the police to show them where he had thrown
*794
the murder weapon. The evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find Appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes for which he was convicted.
Jackson v. Virginia,
2. Appellant claims that his statements to police were improperly admitted into evidence because they were induced by a hope of benefit and fear of injury, in violation of OCGA § 24-3-50. However, Appellant has waived this specific claim because he failed to raise it at the hearing held pursuant to
Jackson v. Denno,
3. Appellant also contends that the trial court violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination by admitting his statements even though they wеre not freely and voluntarily given. See
Mincey v. Arizona,
The standard for determining the admissibility of a defendant’s confession is the preponderance of the evidence. [Cit.] To determine whether a confession was voluntarily made, a trial court must consider the totality of the circumstances, and unless clearly erroneous, a trial court’s credibility determinations and factual findings relating to the admissibility of a confession must be upheld on appeal. [Cits.]
Smiley v. State,
In the present case, the record shows that prior to admitting Appellant’s statements, the court conducted a
Jackson-Denno
hearing to determine if the statements were voluntarily given. Evidence at the hеaring showed that Appellant, a 37-year-old man, could read
*795
and write, had graduated from high school, and was not under the influence of any drugs or alcohol. The interrogating officers testified that Appellant voluntarily accompanied them to the sheriff s office, he was never handcuffed, and he was free to leave at any time. Although there was evidence that the door to the interview room may have been locked when the officers were not present, we have previously held that locked doors do not indicate an in-custody arrangemеnt where “there [is] no evidence that [the suspect] could not have left had he so requested.”
Grayer v. State,
4. In his final enumeration, Aрpellant asserts that his statements to police should have been excluded because his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures was violated. He argues thаt since there was no probable cause to have seized him and kept him in custody, any statements made during his illegal seizure must be held inadmissible under the exclusionary rule. See
State v. Guillory,
“ ‘(E)ven when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual, (cits.); ... as long as the police do not convey a message that compliance with their requests is required.’ (Cit.) . . . ‘So long as a reasonable person would feel free “to disregard the police and go about his business,” (cit.), the encounter is consensual аnd no reasonable suspicion is required. The encounter will not trigger Fourth Amendment scrutiny unless it loses its consensual nature.’ (Cit.)” [Cit.]
Smith v. State,
Contrary to Appellant’s contention, the рresent case is distinguishable from
Dunaway v. New York,
“ ‘ “Since a consensual encounter is not a seizure, questioning during such an encountеr is lawful, regardless of scope, as long as the person remains a willing participant. (Cits.)” (Cits.)’ [Cit.]” Smith v. State, supra at 187 (2). In the present case, the evidence as found by the trial court supports the cоnclusion that the encounter between Appellant and the investigating officers remained entirely consensual and that a reasonable person would have felt free to end the questioning and leave at any time. Therefore, the encounter never escalated into a seizure that would trigger Appellant’s Fourth Amendment rights. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in admitting Apрellant’s statements into evidence.
Judgments affirmed.
Notes
Thе crimes occurred on July 12, 2007, and the grand jury returned the indictment on February 4, 2008. The jury found Appellant guilty on December 10, 2008, and the trial court entered the judgments of conviction and sentences on Dеcember 18, 2008. The motion for new trial was filed on December 31, 2008, amended on November 5, 2009, and denied on January 4, 2010. Appellant filed the notice of appeal on January 12, 2010. The case was docketed in this Court for the April 2010 term and orally argued on June 14, 2010.