FI RST DI VI SI ON DOYLE, C. J.

, PHI PPS, P. J, and BOGGS, J.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be ph y sic a l ly r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

http://w w w .ga a ppe a l s .us /r ule s

October 19, 2015



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 5 A0 90 7 . THOM AS v . THE STATE. DO-0 3 6 C

D O Y LE , Ch ief J ud g e.

M arcu s Th o m as was co n vi ct ed o f two co u n t s o f arm ed ro b b ery 1 an d t wo co u n t s

o f p o s s es s i o n of a fi rearm d u ri n g t h e co m m is s i o n o f a cri m e. 2 Th om as ap p eal s t h e

s u b s eq u en t d en i al of h i s m o t i o n fo r n ew t ri al

, ch al l en g i n g t h e su ffi ci en cy o f t h e

ev i d en ce an d arg u i n g t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred b y d en y i ng h i s Ba t

s o n 3 ch al l en g es t o

t h e St at e’ s s t ri kes of fo u r p ro s p ect i ve ju ro rs an d b y ad m i t t i ng hi s cu s t o d ial st at em en t s

i n t o ev i d en ce b ecau s e t he s t at em en t s were o b t ai n ed aft er h e i n v o k ed h i s ri g h t to

rem ai n s i l en t . W e affi rm

fo r t h e reas o n s t h at fo l l o w

.

1 OCGA § 1 6 -8 -4 1 (a).

2 OCGA § 1 6 -1 1-1 06 (b ) (1 ).

3 Ba t s o n v. Ken t u cky , 4 7 6 U. S. 7 9 (1 06 SCt 1 7 1 2 , 9 0 LE2 d 6 9 ) (1 9 86 ).On ap p eal fro m a cri m i n al co n vi ct i o n , we v i ew t h e ev i d en ce i n a

l i gh t fav o rab l e t o t h e v erd i ct

, an d t h e d efen d an t n o l o n ger en jo y s a

p res um p t i o n o f i n n o cen ce. W e d o n o t wei g h th e ev i d en ce o r res o lv e

i s su es of wi t n es s cred i bi li t y , b u t m erel y d et erm i n e wh et h er t h e ev i d en ce

was s u ffi ci en t t o fi n d t he d efen d an t g u i l t y b ey o n d a reas o n ab l e d o u b t

. 4

So v i ewed

, t h e reco rd s h o ws t h at at ap p ro x i m at el y 9 : 0 0 a.m

. o n No vem b er 1 9,

2 0 0 7

, T h o m as an d an acco m p l i ce en t ered an Au g u st a g as s t at i o n , p ro d u ced a p i s t o l

,

an d d em an ded t h e m o ney i n t h e cas h reg i s t er. A cu s t o m er s aw t h e t wo m en ex i t t h e

s t ore an d ru n t oward s a l arg e, b l u e v eh i cl e i n wh i ch a wo m an was wai t i n g.

Lat e r th at s am e day

, Th o m as an d a wo m an en tered an A u g u s t a Su b way

res t au ran t

. Th o m as b ran di s h ed a b l ack p is to l

, p o i n t ed it at t h e res t au ran t em p l o y ees ,

d em an d ed m o n ey , t o o k pap er b il l s as wel l as ro l led co i n s fro m t h e cas h d rawer, ex i t ed

t h e r e s t au ran t

, an d fl ed i n a l i gh t b l u e v an

. T h o m as h ad a b an d an a t i ed aro u n d h i s

face, an d t h e fem al e acco m p l i ce wo re a wh it e, ho ck ey o r “ Fred d y

Kru [e] g er” m as k

an d g l ov es

.

Du ri n g th e en s u i n g i n v es t i g at i o n , p ol ice di s co v ered t h at Th o m as ’ s wi fe was a

fo rm er em

p l oy ee o f t he Su b way

. Po l ice wen t t o t h e h o m e w h ere Th om as an d h i s wi fe

4 (Fo o t n o t es o m i t t ed

. ) New v. S t a t e , 27 0 Ga. Ap p. 3 4 1 (1 ) (6 0 6 SE2 d 8 6 5 ) (2 0 0 4), ci t in g W

a l l er v. S t a t e , 2 6 7 Ga. Ap p . 6 0 8 (6 0 0 SE2 d 7 0 6 ) (2 0 0 4 ).

2l i ved

, an d fo u nd b o t h o f t h em t here, as w el l as m u l t ip l e o t h er p eo pl e. A s earch o f t h e

h o m e rev eal ed a h o ck ey m as k, a b l ack rep l i ca p i s t o l, a Su b w ay b al l cap , a ban d an a,

g l o v es , o th er cl o t hi ng co ns i s t en t wi t h t h at wo rn b y th e as s ai l an t s d uri n g t he ro b b eri es ,

an d a ro l l o f p en n i es ; t h es e i t em s were fo un d i n t he b ed ro om Th om as s h ared wi t h h i s

wi fe.

At t ri al

, t h e g as s t at i on cl erk i d en t i fi ed T h o m as as t h e m an w h o ro b b ed t h e

s t at i o n Fo o t ag e o f v i d e o s u rv ei l l an ce o f t h e g as s t at i o n ro b b ery w as p lay ed fo r t h e

ju ry , as was fo ot ag e o f t he Su b w ay ro b b ery

. Aft er T h o m as was arres t ed

, h e i n i t i al l y

d en ied an y i n v o l v em en t i n t h e r o b b eri es , bu t aft er b ei n g co n fro n t ed wi t h ev i d en ce,

h e l at er ad m i t t ed t h at h e p art i ci p at ed i n t h e ro b b eri es an d g av e d et ai l s o f h i s act i o n s ;

a DVD o f Th o m as ’ s t ap ed s t at em en t was p l ay ed fo r t he ju ry

.

Th o m as was co n v i ct ed an d sen t en ced t o t w o l i fe s e n t e n c es p l u s ten y ears , to

b e s erv ed co ns ecu t i v el y

. Th e t ri al co u rt d en i ed h i s s u b s eq uen t m o ti o n fo r n ew t ri al

,

an d t h is ap p eal fo ll o wed

.

1

. Th o m as ch al l en g es t h e s u ffi ci en cy o f t h e ev i d e n ce i n a s i n g l e p arag rap h,

wh i ch l ack s an y s p eci fi ci t y reg ard i ng t h e ev i den ce o r t h e el em e n t s o f t he ch arg es

.

3Hav in g rev i ewed t h e ev i den ce, we co n cl u d e t h at i t was s u ffi ci en t t o es t ab l i sh h i s g u i l t

b ey o n d a reas o n ab l e d ou b t

. 5

2

. Th o m as co n t en d s t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred by d en y i n g h is Ba t s o n ch al l en ge,

arg u i n g t h at t h e St at e fai l ed to g i v e a race-n eu t ral reas o n fo r fo ur o f i t s p erem p t o ry

s t ri k es d u ri n g ju ry

s el ect i o n . Th i s en u m erat i o n p res en t s n o b as i s fo r rev ers al

.

Ba t s on p ro v i d es a t h ree-s tep p ro ces s fo r ad ju d i cat i n g a cl ai m t hat

a p erem p to ry ch al l en ge was b as ed o n race: (1 ) t h e o p po n e n t o f a

p erem p t ory ch al l en g e m

u s t m ak e a p ri m a faci e s h o wi n g o f raci al

d i s cri m i n at io n ; (2 ) t h e p ro p o n en t of t he s t ri k e m u s t t h en p ro vi d e a racen eu t ral ex p lan at i o n fo r t h e s tri k e; an d (3 ) th e co urt m u s t deci d e wh et h er

t h e o p p o nen t o f t h e s t r i k e h as pro v en di s cri m in at o ry i n t en t

. A t ri al

co u rt ’ s fi nd i n g as t o wh et h er t h e o p p o n en t o f a s tri k e h as p ro v en

d i s cri m i n at ory in ten t i s en t i t l ed t o g r e a t d eferen ce an d w i l l n o t be

d i s t u rb ed u n l es s cl earl y

erro n eo u s

. 6

5 S e e J o n e s v. S ta t e , 26 6 Ga. Ap p. 6 7 9

, 6 8 1 -6 8 2 (1 ) (5 9 8 SE2 d 6 5 0) (2 0 0 4 ).

See al s o Ja cks o n v. V

i r gi n i a , 44 3 U. S. 30 7

, 3 1 9 (III) (B) (9 9 SCt 2 7 8 1

, 6 1 L E2 d 5 6 0 ) (1 9 7 9); OCGA § 1 6 -8 -4 1 (a) (arm ed ro b b ery ); OCGA § 1 6 -1 1-1 0 6 (b ) ( 1) ( poss es s i o n

o f a fi rearm

d u ri n g t h e co m

m i s s i o n o f a fel o n y ).

6 (Ci t at i o n o m i t ted .) W

o o d a l l v. S t a t e , 29 4 Ga. 6 2 4

, 6 2 7 ( 3 ) (7 5 4 SE2 d 3 3 5 ) (2 0 1 4).

4“ Th e ex erci s e o f a p erem p t o ry ch al l en g e m

us t n ot b e b as ed o n ei t h er t he race o f t h e

ju ro r o r th e raci al s t ereo t y pes h el d b y t h e p art y

. An d t h e p ro ffer o f a p ret ex t u al

ex p lan at i o n n at u ral l y

g i v es ri s e t o an i n feren ce o f d i s cri m i n at o ry i n t en t .” 7

Here, al t h o u g h v o ir d i re was n o t t ran s cri b ed

, d u ri n g t h e Ba t s o n h eari n g,

d efen s e co un s el av erred t hat t h e St at e u s ed al l o f it s ei g h t s t ri kes fo r t he reg u l ar ju ry

an d b o t h o f i t s t wo st ri k es i n th e al t ern at e p o o l t o s t ri k e bl ack ju ro rs

. 8 Th e tri al co u rt

fo u n d t h at t h e d efen s e h ad m et i t s pri m a faci e s h o w i n g o f raci al d is cri m i n at i o n an d

req u i red t h e St at e t o g i v e race-n eu t ral re a s o n s fo r i t s s tri k es

. 9 Aft er h eari n g t h e

reas on s , t h e t ri al co u rt fo u n d th at t h ree o f t he St at e’ s s t ri k es fo r t h e reg ul ar ju ry were

n o t r a c e -n eu t ral

, an d i t ret u rn ed t h o s e ju ro rs t o t h e p an el ; t h e co u rt fo u n d t h at t h e

7 (Ci t at i o n an d p u nct u at io n o m i tt ed .) Mi n o r v. S ta t e , 3 2 8 Ga. Ap p

. 1 2 8

, 1 3 5 (4 ) (7 6 1 SE2 d 5 3 8 ) (2 0 1 4 ), q uo t i n g To o mer v. S ta t e , 29 2 Ga. 49

, 5 5 (2 ) (b ) (7 3 4 SE2 d

3 3 3 ) (2 0 1 2 ) an d Lewi s v. S ta te , 2 6 2 Ga. 6 7 9 , 6 8 0 (2 ) (4 2 4 SE2 d 6 2 6 ) (1 9 9 3 ).

8 Defen s e co u n s el ad v i s ed t h at t h e ju ry an d t h e t wo al t ern at es were co m p ri s ed

o f s ev en wh it e ju ro rs an d s ev en b lack ju ro rs . Th e reco rd i s n o t cl ear o n wh i ch were

t h e al t ern at es

.

9 “ [R ]e q u i r [ i ng ] t h e St at e t o art i cu l at e i t s reas o n s fo r t h e p erem p to ry s t ri k es ,

ren d er[ed ] m o o t t h e i s s u e o f wh et h er [Th o m as ] h ad es t ab li s h ed a p ri m a faci e cas e. Acco rd in g ly

, we [n eed ] n o t ad d res s wh et h er [Th o m as ] es t ab l i s h ed a pri m a faci e cas e

u n d er B a t s o n. ” M i n o r , 3 2 8 Ga. Ap p . at 1 3 7 (4 ).

5St at e o ffered a race-n eu t ral ex p l an at io n fo r t h e St at e’ s fi v e o t h er p erem p to ry s t ri k es

fo r t h e reg u l ar ju ry

. 1 0

On ap p eal

, T h o m as ch al l en g es t he St at e’ s ex p l an at i o ns fo r fo u r o f t h e fi v e

s t ri k es th at t h e t ri al c o u r t d et erm i n ed were race-n eu t ral

. Th e St at e ex p l ai n ed t h at i t

s t ru ck (1 ) J u ro r C. W

. b ecau s e s h e i n d i cat ed th at s h e h ad p rev i o u s l y s erv ed o n a ju ry

an d co u l d n o t s i t fai rl y i n t h i s cas e; (2 ) Ju ro r S. B. b ecau se s h e had p rev i o u s ly s erv ed

o n m u lt i p l e j uri es , s o m e o f wh i ch res ul t ed i n a n o t g u i l t y verd i ct 1 1 ; (3 ) J uro r K. W

.

b ecau s e s h e fel l as leep d u ri ng v o i r d i re an d h ad p rev io u s l y serv ed as t h e fo rep ers o n

o n a ju ry t h at ren d ered a n o t g u i l t y v erd ict ; an d (4 ) J u ro r D. J . b ecau s e h e i n d i cat ed

“ t h at h e co u l d n ot ju d g e a fel l o w h u m an b ei n g .”

[Th o m as ] d o es no t arg u e t hat t h e reas o ns ci t ed fo r s t ri k in g J u ro rs
[C. W

. , S. B., K. W

. , an d D. J .] were i n h eren t l y raci al l y d i s cri m in at o ry

o r b as ed on raci al s t ereo t y p es , n or h as he c i t ed u s t o an y au t h o ri t y

h o l d i n g t h at s im i l ar reas o n s h av e b e e n f o u n d to b e b as ed o n raci al

s t ereo t y pes

. An d wi t h o u t t h e t ran s cri p t o f t h e v o i r d i re, we m u st as s u m e

t h at th e tri al co u rt ’ s reco l l ect io n o f vo i r d i re, i ncl u d i n g [h i s] reco l l ect i o n

1 0 T h e t r i a l co u rt fo u nd t h at t h e St at e o ffered race-n eu t ral reas o n s fo r i t s t wo

s t ri k es fo r t h e al t ern at e ju ro rs . Th o m as d o es n o t ch al l en g e t h es e s t ri k es o n ap p eal

.

1 1 Th e St at e al s o av erred t h at i t h ad i n d ep en d en t i n fo rm at i on

– n o t o ffered by

S. B.

– t hat i n o n e cas e s h e w as “ a h o s t i l e ju ro r” an d refu s ed t o s i t wi t h t h e o t h er ju ro rs

.

6o f each ju ro r’ s res p o n s es an d d em ean o r, was accu rat e an d s u p p o r t e d

[h i s ] d eci s i on to fi n d t h e p ro s ecu t i o n ’ s ex pl an at i o n s as t o [t h o se j ] u ro rs

. . . t o be race[-] n e u t r a l

. Th erefo re, w i th o u t acces s t o a co m p l et e

t ran s cri p t o f t h e v o i r d i re o f th e ju ry , we can n o t co n cl u d e t h at i t w as

cl earl y erro n eo u s fo r t he t ri al co u rt t o ru l e t h at [Th o m as ] fai l ed t o carry

h i s b u rd en o f pro vi n g t h at t h e race-n eu t ral reas o n s g i v en b y th e

p ro p o n en t o f t h e s t ri k e[s ] were m erel y p ret ex t s fo r p u rp o s efu l raci al

d i s cri m i n at io n

. Th e p o s t u re o f t h e ev i d en ce i n t he p art ial t ran s cri p t d o es

n o t s u p p o rt [Th o m as ’ s ] Ba t s o n ch al l en g e. Si n ce t h e v o i r di re was n o t

t ran s cri b ed

, w e m

u s t as s u m e t h at t h e tri al co u rt d i d no t err i n i t s Ba t s o n

ru l i n g

. 1 2

3

. Th o m as al s o arg u es t h at t he t ri al co urt er r e d b y a d m it t i n g h is cu s t o d i al

s t at em en t , wh i ch h e co n ten d s v i o l at ed h i s Mi r an d a 1 3 ri g h ts

.

“ W h en an ap pel l at e co u rt rev i ews a t ri al co urt ’ s g ran t o r d en ial o f a m o t i o n to

s u p p res s , t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s fi nd i n g s as t o d i s p u t ed fact s wi l l b e u p h el d u n l es s cl earl y

erro neo u s [,] an d th e tri al co u rt ’ s ap p l i cat i o n o f t h e law t o u n di s p ut ed fact s i s s u b ject

1 2 (Pu n ct u at i on an d fo ot n o t e o m i t t ed .) Id

. at 1 4 0 ( 6 )

, q u ot i n g Ru s s el l v. Pa r kf o rd Ma n ag emen t Co ., In c. , 2 3 5 Ga. Ap p . 8 1 , 8 3 (2 ) (5 08 SE2 d 4 5 4 ) (1 9 9 8 ).

1 3 Mi r a n d a v. Ar i z o n a , 3 84 U. S. 4 3 6 (8 6 SCt 1 6 0 2 , 1 6 LE2 d 6 9 4) (1 96 6 ).

7t o d e no v o rev i ew.” 1 4 In t h i s cas e, b ecau s e th e fact s are un d i s p u ted

, o u r rev i ew i s d e

n o v o

. 1 5

Th o m as was t ak en i nt o cu s t o d y a t h i s h om e an d t ran s p ort ed to t h e p o l i ce

s t at i o n , wh ere he was p laced in a s i x fo o t b y si x fo o t ro o m , an d h i s feet were s h ack l ed

t o t he fl oo r. At 4 : 2 0 p.m ., Serg ean t Ken Ro g ers en tered t h e ro o m , t ol d Th o m as t h at

h e w as a s u s p ect i n t h ei r i n ves t ig at i o n of two ro b b eri es an d th at t h ey n eed ed to

i n t erv i ew h i m , an d th en el i ci t ed fro m Th o m as bas i c i n fo rm at i o n i n cl ud i n g h i s n am e

an d d at e of b i rt h

. 1 6 Ro g ers t h en read Th o m as h i s M i r a nd a ri g h t s

. T h o m as res p o n d ed

“ t h at h e d i d n o t wan t t o m ak e a s t at em en t .” Ro g ers “ t h en s p ok e wi t h hi m a co u p l e

–

a l i t t l e b i t fu rt h er [ ,] a n d [Th o m as ] b as i cal l y s ai d h e h ad n o kn o w l ed g e o f an y

ro b b eri es an d t h at [t h e p o li ce] co u l d j u s t p u t h i m i n jai l .” Ro g ers t h en l eft t h e ro o m

.

Th o m as rem ai n ed al o n e i n t h e s m al l in t erv i ew ro om fo r m o re t h an th ree h o u rs ,

d u r i n g wh ich t i m e h i s feet w ere s h ack l ed t o t h e fl o o r, an d h e w as no t o ffered fo o d,

wat er, o r t h e o p p o rt u n it y t o u s e t h e res t ro o m

. Aro u n d 8 : 0 0 p .m ., Ro g ers an d an o t h er

i n v es t i g at o r ap p ro ach ed In ves ti g at o r J am es Kel l y , ad v is ed h i m t hat Th o m as was in

1 4 S t a t e v. Na s h , 2 79 Ga. 6 4 6, 6 48 (2 ) (6 1 9 SE2 d 6 84 ) (2 0 0 5 ).

1 5 See Ma ck v. S t a t e , 2 9 6 Ga. 2 3 9

, 2 4 1 -2 4 2 (7 6 5 SE2 d 8 9 6 ) (2 0 1 4 ).

1 6 Th i s co l l oq u y

was n o t reco rd ed

.

8t h e i n t erv i ew ro om an d h ad refu s ed t o s p eak wi t h t h em , an d as k ed Kel l y t o g o i n an d

at t em p t t o s p eak wi th Th o m as

. 1 7

Kel l y en t ered t h e i n t e r v i e w ro o m at 8 :2 0 p .m

. an d b eg an s p eak i n g wi th

Th o m as , “ [a] dv i s [i n g h i m ] tha t he ne e de d to c ooperat e wi th th e[] i n v es ti gat o rs .” Kel l y

t h en t o l d Th o m as t hat Th o m as ’ s wi fe h ad m ad e a s t at em en t t o p o li ce i n cri m i n at i n g

Th o m as

. W h en T h o m as res p on d ed t h at h e d id n ot b el i ev e Kel ly

, Kel l y l eft t h e ro o m ,

ret ri ev ed t h e au di o reco rd i n g o f Th o m as ’ s wi fe’ s s t at em e n t

, an d p l ay ed a s m al l

p o rt i on of i t fo r Th om as

. Th om as t h en ag reed t o s p eak wi t h t h e o t h er i nv es t i g at o rs

ab o ut t he ro bb ery , s i g n ed a M i r a n d a w ai v er fo rm , an d g av e a r e c o rd ed s t at em en t

d et ai li n g h i s i n v o lv em en t i n t h e t wo ro b beri es

.

In ex am in i n g th e o p e r a t i o n of t h e Fi ft h Am en d m en t ’ s p ri v i leg e

a g ai n s t s el f-i n cri m i n at io n , t h e Un i t ed St at es Su p rem e Co u rt h as m ad e

cl ear t h at w hen an i n d i v id u al i n cu st o d y “ i n d icat es i n an y m an ner, at an y

t i m e p ri o r to o r d u ri n g q u es t i o n i ng , th at h e wi s h es t o rem ai n s i l en t, th e

i n t erro g at io n m

u s t ceas e.” At t h i s p o i n t

, t h at i n d iv i d u al “ h as s h o wn t hat

h e i n t en d s t o ex erci s e h i s Fi ft h A m en d m en t p ri v i l e g e ; an y s t at em en t

1 7 At t h e su p p res s io n h eari n g , wh en as k ed wh y h e s en t Kel l y in t o s p eak wi th

Th o m as , Ro g ers rep l i ed

, “ [b ] as i cal l y , wh at o ccu rs i s

– m y ex p eri en ce i s i f I in t erv i ew

s o m eb o d y I m ay get n o t h i n g. An o t h er in v es t i g at o r m ay go i n t h e r e a n d g et t h em to

co n fes s ev ery t hi n g an d an y t h i n g

. . . . So we cu s to m ari l y t ak e t u rn s a t t r yi ng t o g et

t h em t o t al k an d s o fo rt h . It ’ s n o t u n co m m o n .”

9t ak en aft er t h e p ers o n i n v o k es h i s p ri v i l eg e ca n n o t b e o th er t h an th e

p ro d u ct o f co m

p u l s i o n .” 1 8

H e r e , T h o m as u n eq u i v o cal l y i n v o k ed hi s ri g ht t o rem ai n s i l en t wh en h e t o l d

Ro g ers t hat h e “ was n o t m ak in g a s t at em en t an d th at [t h e p o li ce] co u l d ju s t p u t h i m

i n jai l .” 1 9 Th e i nv o cat i o n i t s el f, h o wev er, d o es n o t au t o m at ical l y req u i re su p p res s i o n

o f Th om as ’ s s t at em en t b ecau s e

an accu s ed ’ s as sert i o n o f h i s ri g ht t o rem ai n s il en t effect s n ei t h er a

p erm an en t i m

m u ni t y fro m fu rt h er in t erro gat i on b y t h e po l ice n o r a

b l an ket p ro h ib i t i o n o n l at er s t at em en t s m ad e v o l u n t ari ly b y t h e accu sed

. Rat h er, t h e ad m i s s i b i li t y o f s t at em en ts o bt ai n ed aft er t h e per s o n i n

cu s t od y has d eci ded to rem ai n s i l en t dep en d s u nd er Mi r a n d a o n wh et h er

h i s ri g h t t o c u t o ff qu es t i o n i n g was s cru p u l o us l y h o n o red b y l aw

en fo rcem en t au t ho ri t i es

. 2 0

1 8 (Ci t at i o n o m i t t ed .) I d

. a t 2 4 2 (1 ), q u o t i n g Mi ra n da

, 3 8 4 U. S. at 4 7 3 -4 7 4 (III).

1 9 See Ma ck

, 2 9 6 Ga. at 2 4 2 -2 4 3 (1 ) (d efen d an t ’ s st at em en t t h at “ I’ m d o n e. I

h av e n o m o re t o s ay

. I’ m do ne. Let ’ s ri d e,” was an u n eq u i v o cal as sert i o n o f t h e ri g ht

t o rem ai n s i l en t ); G r e en v. St a t e , 2 7 5 Ga. 5 6 9

, 5 7 2 -5 7 3 (2 ) (5 7 0 SE2 d 20 7 ) (2 0 0 2 ) (fi n di n g u n eq u i v o cal as s ert i o n o f ri g h t t o rem ai n s i l en t wh en t h e d efen d an t t o ld

p o l i ce, “ I d o n ’ t wan t t o tal k .”).

2 0 (Ci t a t i o n a n d p u n ct u at i o n om i t t ed .) Ma ck

, 2 9 6 Ga. at 2 4 3 (2 ), q u o t i n g
Mi ch i g a n v. Mo sl ey , 4 23 U. S. 9 6 , 1 02 , 1 04 (9 6 SCt . 3 2 1, 4 6 LE2 d 3 1 3 ) (1 9 7 5 ).

10Fact ors i n d et erm i n i n g wh et h er a d efen dan t’ s as s ert i o n o f h i s ri g h t t o rem ai n

s i len t was s cru pu l o u s l y h o n o red i n cl u d e w h e t h er p o l ice i m m ed i at el y ceas ed al l

q u es ti o n i n g u po n as sert i o n an d t h e t i m e i nt erv al bet w e e n t h e as s ert i o n an d t h e

s u b s eq u en t p ol i ce-i n i t iat ed q u es t i o n i n g

. 2 1 Aft er ap p ly i ng t h es e fact o rs , we co n cl u d e

t h at Th o m as ’ s s t at em en t was i m p ro p erl y o b t ai n ed

.

Fi rs t

, Ro g ers ad m i t t e d a t t h e s u p p res s i on h eari n g t h at aft er Th o m as t o l d h i m

t h at h e wo u l d no t m ak e a s t at em en t

, Ro g ers “ s p o k e wi t h h i m a co u p l e

– a l i t t l e b i t

fu rt her.” 2 2 An d l es s t h an fo u r h o u rs t ran s p i red b efo re Ro gers s en t Kel l y i n t o s p eak

wi t h Th om as

. Th u s, th i s s h o rt t i m e i n t erv al wei g hs i n fav o r o f s u p p res s i o n

. 2 3

Seco n d l y , t h ere i s n o ev i d e n c e t h at Th o m as i n it i at ed t h e co n v ers at io n w i t h Kel l y

.

In s t ead

, Kel l y w en t i nt o th e ro om , wi t h o ut an y co m m u n i cat i o n fro m Th o m as d u ri n g

t h e b r e ak aft er Ro g ers left th e ro o m , an d K el l y i m m ed i at el y ad v i s ed Th o m as to

co o perat e an d t h en b eg an ad v is i n g Th o m as o f hi s wi fe’ s s t at em en t in cri m i nat i n g h i m

.

2 1 See Ma ck , 2 9 6 Ga. at 2 4 3 (2 ).

2 2 Th e reco rd i s s il en t as t o t h e s u bs t an ce of t he bri ef co ll o q uy b efo re Kel l y l eft

t h e i n t erv i ew ro om

.

2 3 See i d

. (“ Al th ou g h t h e Su p rem e Co u rt o f Geo rg ia “ [h as ] n ev er es t ab l i s h ed

a b ri g h t l i n e fo r wh at co n s t i t u t es t h e req u i s i t e t im e i n t er v a l i n th i s reg ard

, [i t h as ]

p rev i o u s l y h el d

. . . t h at a 1 7 -h o u r o v ern i g h t ti m e l a p s e b e t ween as s ert i o n o f t h e

p ri v i leg e an d fu rt h er p o li ce co m m u n i cat i o n s was n o t s u ffi ci en t .”).

11Un d er t h es e ci rcu m s t an ces “ th e St at e h as fai l ed t o s at i s fy i t s b u rd en t o es t ab l i s h an

effect i v e i n i t i at io n by [Th o m as ] .” 2 4 Acco rd in gl y , we h o l d t h at T ho m as ’ s st at em en t s

m ad e aft er h e i n v o k ed h is ri g h t t o rem ai n s il en t were i m pro p erl y o b t ai ned

.

Nev ert h el es s , we fi n d t h e erro r h arm l es s i n l ig h t o f t h e o v erwh el m i n g ev i d en ce

o f Th o m as ’ s g u i l t

, i n cl u d i n g t h e g as s t at i o n at t en d a n t ’s id en t i fi cat io n o f h i m , t h e

v i d eo s u rv ei l l an ce fo o tag e o f t he t wo ro b b eri es , t h e m ul ti t ud e o f i t em s fo u n d i n h i s

b ed ro o m l i nk i n g h i m t o t he ro b b eri es , an d t h e fact th at h i s wi fe, wh o p art i ci p at ed in

t h e ro b b ery

o f t h e Su bway , was a d i s gru n t led fo rm er em p l o y ee o f t h e res t au ran t

. 2 5

Ju d g men t a f f i r m ed . Ph i

p p s , P. J., a nd

Bo g g s , J., co n cu r

.

2 4 (Pu n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed .) Id . at 2 4 9 (2 ).

2 5 See A r iz o n a v. Fu l mi n a nt e , 49 9 U. S. 2 79

, 2 9 5 (IV) (1 1 1 SCt 1 24 6

, 1 1 3

LE2 d 3 02 ) (1 9 91 ) (s tat i n g t h at t h e “ h arm l es s -erro r an al y s i s ap p l ies t o co er c e d

co n fes s i o n s ”); Ri ch a r d

s o n v. S t a t e , 2 65 Ga. A p p

. 7 1 1

, 7 1 6 ( 1 ) ( 5 9 5 SE2 d 5 6 5 ) (2 0 0 4), di s ap p ro v ed o n ot her g ro u n d s b y Br o wn v. S t a t e , 2 9 0 Ga. 8 65

, 8 6 9

, n

. 2 (7 2 5

SE2 d 3 2 0) (2 0 1 2); Ha d l ey v. S t a t e , 2 3 5 Ga. Ap p . 7 3 7 , 7 38 (5 1 0 SE2 d 5 6 9 ) (1 9 9 8 ).

12