In th e S u p re m e Co u rt o f Ge o rg ia

De c id e d: F e b ru a ry 2 , 2 0 1 5

S 1 4 A1 7 2 2 . DEVAUGHN v

. THE S TATE.

NAHMIAS , Ju stic e

.

Ap p e lla n t J e a n P ie rre De V a u g hn w a s c o n v ic te d o f m a lic e m u rd e r a n d

o th e r c rim e s in c o n n e c tio n with th e sh o o tin g d e a th o f Willia m Eric Cla rk . On

a p p e a l, h e a rg u e s th a t th e tria l c o u rt e rre d in strik in g two bla c k ju ro rs fo r c a u se

,

a llo w in g a k e y witn e s s to te stify o n sh o rt n o tic e

, a n d a d m ittin g e v id e n c e

o b ta in e d in v io la tio n of h is M ira n d a rig h ts. Ap p e lla n t a lso a rg u e s th a t th e S ta te

fa ile d to d isc lo se a n a g re e m e n t with a witn e ss. We a ffirm

. 1

1 The v ictim was ki l l e d on December 13, 2005. On May 29, 2009, after the p olice had

reinitiated the investig ation as a “ cold case” in 2008, a F ulton County g rand jury indicted Appellant,

C o n s t ance Clark, and Christopher Tumlin for malice murder, two counts o f felony murd e r

,

ag g r avated assault w ith a deadl y w e a p o n, hijacking a motor vehicle, and possession of a firearm

during the commission of a crime; A ppellant and Clark were also charg e d with conspiracy to commit

murder. Appellant was tried separately from April 4 to 11, 2011, and the jury found him g uilty of

all charg es. The trial court sentenced Appellant to life in prison for malice murder a nd consecutive

terms of 20 y ears for the hijacking conviction a nd five y e ars for the firearm conviction. The felony

murder verdicts were vacated b y operation of law, a nd the ag g ravated assault and conspiracy counts

merg ed. Appellant filed a timely motion f or new trial, which he amended w ith the assistance of new

counsel on September 12, 2011. A fter a hearing

, the trial c ourt denied the motion o n May 3, 2013.

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, and the case was docketed in this Court f or the September

2014 term and submitted for decision on the briefs.

Clark was convicted in her separate trial o n a ll charg es ex cept hijacking and felony murder

predicated on hijacking ; her appeal to this Court is p ending decision in Case No. S14A1685. Tumlin

testified a t A p p e l l a n t ’s trial under a g rant of use immunity ; the r e cord does not indicate how the1

. Vie we d in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le to th e v e rd ic ts, th e e v id e n c e a t

tria l sh owe d th e fo llo win g. Ap pe lla n t’s c o u sin , Co n sta n c e Cla rk (Cla rk ), wa s

th e vic tim ’s wife ; th e c o u p le l i v e d in Be sse m e r, Ala b a m a

. Cla rk wa s h a v in g

fin a nc ia l d iffic u ltie s, a

n d th e v ic tim h a d life in su ra n c e p o lic ie s fo r $ 6 0 0 ,0 0 0 th a t

n a m e d h e r a s th e p r i ma r y b e n e fic ia ry

. Cla rk to ld Ap pe lla n t th a t th e v ic tim

a b u se d h e r a n d o ffe re d Ap p e lla n t $ 5 ,0 0 0 to k ill h im

.

Th e v ic tim wo rk e d a sid e jo b a s a ba rte n d e r, a n d o n De c e m b e r 1 3

, 2 0 0 5

,

h e d ro v e fro m

h is h o m e to Atla n tato m e e t with Ap p e lla n t, wh o wa s su p p o se d

to ta k e h im to a d isc o un t liq u o r sto re to p u rc ha se su p p lie s fo r a n e v e n t.

Ap p e lla n t c a lle d h is frie n d Kh ore y Bra n c h to a sk if Bra nc h kn e w wh e re h e

c o u ld b u y a gu n

, a n d B ra n c h c o n ta c te d C h risto p h e r Tu m lin

, wh o a g re e d to se ll

Ap p e l l a nt a h a n d g u n

. Ap p e lla n t a n d Bra n c h dro v e in Ap pe lla n t’s c a r to

Tu m lin ’s h o m e in so uth we st Atla n ta

, wh e re Tu m lin so ld Ap p e lla n t a h a n d g u n

.

Tu m lin th e n ro d e with Ap p e lla n t a n d Bra n c h t o a g a s sta tio n n e a r S ix F la g s,

wh e re th e y m e t u p with th e v ic tim a ro un d 9 :0 0 p .m

.

Un d e r th e im

p re ssio n th a t h e wa s be in g le d to th e liq u o r sto re

, th e v ic tim

charg es ag ainst him w ere r esolved. T he record does not indicate whether Khorey B ranch, who was

with Appellant and Tumlin at the time of the crimes, was ever charg ed.

2fo llo we d Ap p e lla nt a n d h is two a sso c ia te s u n til b o th c a rs sto p p e d in a d riv e wa y

in a n iso la t e d s e c tio n o f th e u n fin ish e d Wa te rfo rd Ed g e su bd iv isio n ne a r Co lle g e

P a rk

. A p p el l a n t a n d th e v ic tim g o t o u t o f th e ir c a rs an d e n g a g e d in wh a t

a p p e a re d to b e a c a su a l c o n v e rsa tio n u n til Ap p e lla n t su dd e n ly pu lle d ou t h is g u n

a n d sh o t th e v ic tim f

o u r o r f iv e tim e s, k illin g h im

. Im m e d ia te ly a fte r th e

sh o o tin g

, Tu m lin j u mp e d o u t o f Ap p e lla n t’s c a r a n d g o t in to th e v ic tim ’s c a r,

a n d b o t h c a r s s p e d o u t o f th e su b d iv isio n

. Ap p e lla n t d ro p p e d Bra n c h o ff a t

B r a nc h ’s h o m e b e fo re re tu rn in g h o m e h im se lf. Ap pe lla n t c a lle d th e v ic tim ’s

c e ll p h o n e

, w h ic h Tu m lin a n swe re d

, to a sk wh e re T um lin p la n ne d to le a v e th e

v ic tim ’s c a r; T u m lin to ld Ap p e lla n t n o t to c a ll h im an d th e n a b a n d o n e d th e

v ic tim ’s c a r a

bo u t a m ile fro m h is h o m e

. Afte r re tu rn in g h o m e

, Tu m lin re c e iv e d

a c a ll o n h is o wn c e ll ph on e fro m Ap p el l a n t

, w h o wa rn e d th a t Tu m lin o r h is

p a re n ts m ig h t g e t h u rt if h e to ld th e p o lic e a b o u t th e sh o o tin g

.

Bra n c h a n d Tu m lin te stifie d a t Ap p e lla n t’s tria l. T wo re sid e n ts wh o liv e d

in th e c o m

p le te d p a rt o f Wa te rfo rd Ed g e te stifie d to h e a rin g sh o ts fire d

, se e in g

th e v ic tim ’s b o d y in a d riv e wa y

, a n d wa tc h in g two c a rs

– on e o f wh ic h m a tc h e d

th e d e sc rip tio n o f Ap p e l l a n t’s c a r

– d riv e o u t o f th e su b d iv isio n with th e ir

h e a d lig h ts o ff. An o th e r witn e ss, wh o h a d d a te d Cla rk fo r a y e a r sta rtin g a fe w

3m o n th s a fte r th e v ic tim ’s d e a th

, to ld th e p olic e th a t C la rk h a d p a id h e r c o u sin

$ 5 ,0 0 0 to k ill th e v ic tim

. Ap p e lla n t’s fo rm e r m a n a g e r a t a l u mb e r c o m p a n y

te stifie d th a t in 2 0 0 5

, A p p e lla n t d e l iv e re d m a te ria ls to th e W a te rfo rd Ed g e

su b d iv isio n

. A p p e lla n t’s c e ll p h o n e re c o rd s in d ic a te d th a t on th e n i g h t o f th e

sh o o tin g

, h e tra v e le d fro m h is h o m e to wa rd Tu m lin ’s ho u se

, th e n to th e a re a o f

th e c rim e sc e n e

, a nd th e n b a c k to h is h o m e

. T h e c e ll p h o n e re c o rd s a lso sh o we d

c a lls fro m Ap p e lla n t to Cla rk sh o rtly b e fo re a n d a fte r th e sh o o tin g.

Th e e v id e n c e p re s en t e d a t tria l an d su m m a riz e d a bo ve wa s su ffic ie n t to

a u th oriz e a ra tio na l ju ry to fin d Ap p e lla n t g u ilty b e y o n d a re a so na b le do u b t o f

th e c rim e s fo r wh ic h h e wa s c o n v ic te d

. S e e Ja c k so n v

. Virg in ia

, 44 3 U.S

. 3 0 7

,

3 1 9 (9 9 S Ct 2 7 8 1

, 6 1 LE2 d 5 6 0 ) (1 9 7 9 ). S e e a lso Ve ga v

. S ta te

, 28 5 Ga

. 3 2

, 3 3

(6 7 3 S E2 d 2 2 3 ) (2 0 0 9 ) (“ ‘It w a s fo r th e ju ry to d e te rm in e th e c re d ib ility o f th e

witn e sse s a n d to re so lv e a n y c o n flic ts o r in c on siste n c ie s in th e e v id e n c e .’”

(c ita tio n o m itte d )).

2

. Ap pe lla n t a

rg u e s first th a t th e ju ry se le c tio n p ro c e ss wa s ta in te d b y

ra c ia l b ia s. He fa ile d , h owe v e r, to ra ise th is issu e a t tria l, a n d h e th e re fo re d id

n o t p re se rv e it fo r re v ie w o n a p p e a l. S e e Hig u e ra -He rn a n d e z v

. S ta te

, 2 8 9 Ga

.

5 5 3

, 5 5 4 (7 1 4 S E2 d 2 3 6 ) (2 0 1 1 ). In a ny e ve n t, th e c la im is m e ritle ss.

4P o in tin g to th e tria l c o u rt’s re m o v a l fo r c a u se o f two Afric a n -Am e ric a n

p o t e n tia l ju ro rs, Ju ro rs 1 3 a n d 4 2

, Ap p e lla n t a sse rts th a t th e ju ry se le c t i o n

p ro c e ss wa s u n c on stitu tio n a l u n d e r Ba tso n v

. Ke n tu c k y

, 47 6 U.S

. 7 9 (1 0 6 S Ct

1 7 1 2, 9 0 LE2 d 6 9 ) (1 9 8 6 ). Ho we v e r, “ [t] h e an a ly sis o f Ba tso n a p p lie s o n ly to

th e u se o f p e re m

p to ry strik e s, a n d we a re u n a w a r e o f a n y a u th o rity fo r

e x tra p o la tin g th e B a t s o n fra m e wo rk to fo r-c a u se strik e s.” He a d v. S ta te

, 2 7 6

Ga

. 1 3 1

, 1 3 4 (5 7 5 S E2 d 8 8 3 ) (2 0 0 3 ) (fo o tn o te o m itte d ). S e e a lso B a tso n

, 4 7 6

U.S

. a t 8 2 (in tro d u c in g th e c a se a s in v o lv in g “ th e e v id e ntia ry b u rd e n p la c e d o n

a c r i mi n a l d e fe n d a n t w h o c la im s th a t h e ha s b e e n d e n ie d e q u a l p ro te c ti o n

th ro u g h th e S ta te ’s u se o f p e re m p to ry c h a lle n g e s to e x c lu d e m e m b e rs o f h is ra c e

fro m th e p e tit ju ry ” ). Of c ou rse

, ra c ia l b ia s is a n im pe rm issib le b a sis fo r strik in g

ju ro rs fo r c a

u se

, se e id

. a t 84

, b u t Ap p e lla n t ha s n ot sh o w n th a t Ju ro rs 1 3 a n d 4 2

we re stru c k

o n th e b a sis o f th e ir ra c e

.

D u rin g vo ir d ire

, Ju ro r 1 3 s a i d t ha t h is p rio r b a d e xp e rie n c e s with th e

p o lic e a n d p ro se c uto rs m ig h t a ffe c t h is ju d gm e n t in th e c a se a n d th a t h e wa s a

m in iste r a nd wo u ld n o t fe e l c o m fo rta b le sittin g in ju d g m e n t o f o th e rs. Ju ro r 4 2

twic e b ro k e d o wn c ry in g in th e c o u rtro o m wh e n q u e stio n e d a bo ut he r b ro th e r,

wh o h a d re c e n tly d ie d in p riso n

, a n d sa id th a t h e r b ro th e r ha d b e e n re p re se n te d

5b y a n in c o m

p e te nt a tto rn e y wh e n h e w a s c o n v ic te d fo r m urd e r. Th e tria l c o urt

h a s b ro a d d isc re tio n to d e te rm in e a p o te n tia l ju ro r’s im p a rtia lity a n d to strik e fo r

c a u se ju ro rs wh o m a y n o t b e fa ir a n d im p a rtia l. S e e Ro b le s v

. S ta te

, 2 7 7 Ga

.

4 1 5 4 1 5, 4 1 9 -4 20 (5 8 9 S E2 d 5 6 6 ) (2 0 0 3 ) (fin d in g n o a b u se o f disc re tio n wh e re

tria l c o u rt stru c k fo r c a

use o n e p ro sp e c tiv e ju ro r wh o sa id sh e wo uld n o t sta n d

in ju d g m e n t o f a n o th e r, a se c o n d wh o sta te d h e did n o t be lie v e th e la w wa s

a p p lie d e v e n ly

, a n d a th ird wh o sa id sh e c o u ld n o t sta n d in ju d g m e n t o f a n o th e r

b e c a u se o f h e r re lig io u s b e lie fs a n d wo u ld n o t lo o k a t c e rta in g ra p h ic e v id e n c e );

P ru itt v

. S ta te

, 2 7 0 G a

. 7 4 5

, 7 5 1 (5 1 4 S E2 d 6 3 9 ) (1 9 9 9 ) (fin d in g no a b u se o f

d isc re tio n wh e re tria l c o u rt e x c u se d fo r c a u s e a ju ro r wh o sta te d th a t th e le g a l

sy ste m wa s u n fa ir b e c a

u se h e b e lie v e d h i s b ro th e r h a d be e n c o n v ic te d in a n

u n f a ir tria l). We se e no a

bu se o f d isc re tio n h e re a n d

, m o re im p o rta n t l y

, n o

in d ic a tio n th a t th e tria l c o u rt stru c k Ju ro rs 1 3 a n d 4 2 b e c a

use o f th e ir ra c e

.

3

. Ap pe lla n t ne x t e n u m e ra te s a s e rro r th a t h is rig h t to c o n fro n t witn e ss

Kh o re y B ra n c h wa s v io la te d

. Ap p e lla n t d id n o t m a k e a Co n fro nta tio n Cla

use

o b je c tio n a t tria l, a

n d h e th e re fo re fa ile d to p re se rv e su c h a n issu e fo r re v ie w.

S e e Hig u e ra -He rn a nd e z

, 2 8 9 Ga

. a t 5 5 4

. Mo re o ve r, a n y su c h ob je c tio n wo u ld

h a v e b e e n f

r i v o lo u s, b e c a

u se Bra n c h te stifie d a t tria l a n d Ap p e lla n t h a d th e

6o p p ortu n ity to c ro ss-e xa m in e h im

, so Ap p e lla n t’s rig h t to c o n fro n t Bra n c h wa s

fu lly sa tisfie d

. S e e Cra wfo rd v

. Wa sh in g to n

, 5 4 1 U.S

. 3 6

, 5 9 & n .9 (1 2 4 S Ct

1 3 5 4, 1 5 8 LE2 d 1 7 7) (2 0 0 4 ).

Lo o kin g to th e a rg u m e n t m a d e in su p p o rt o f th is e n u m e ra tio n, Ap p e lla n t’s

re a l c o m p la in t is th a t th e S ta t e v i o l a t e d a c rim in a l d isc o ve ry sta tu te b y n o t

in fo rm in g th e de f

e n s e th a t Bra n c h wo u ld te stify un til th e first d a y o f tria l.

OCGA § 1 7 -1 6 -8 (a ) re q u ire s th e pro se c u to r to d isc lo se to d e fe n se c ou n se l th e

n a m e s o f a n d o th e r in fo rm a tio n a b o u t th e S ta te ’s witn e sse s

n o t la te r th a n te n d a y s b e fo re tria l

. . . o r a s o th e rwise ord e re d b y th e

c o u rt,

. . . u n le ss fo r go o d c a u s e t h e j u d g e a llo ws a n e x c e p tio n to

th is re q u ire m e n t, in wh ic h e v e n t [d e fe n se ] c o u n se l sh a ll b e a ffo rd e d

a n o p p o rtu n ity to in te rv ie w su c h witn e sse s p rio r to th e w i t n e sse s

b e in g c a lle d to te stify

.

He r e

, t h e p ro se c u to r e x p la in e d to th e tria l c ou rt th a t T u m lin h a d to ld

in v e stig a to rs th a t a p e rso n k n o wn a s “ Kh o re y ” h a d wa tc h e d Ap pe lla n t sh o o t th e

v ic tim

, b u t c la im e d n o t to kn o w Kh o re y ’s la st n a m e

. 2 Tu m lin id e n tifie d a n o th e r

p e rso n wh o wo u ld k n ow h o w to c o n ta c t Kh o re y

, b u t d e s p ite a n e x h a u stiv e

se a rc h

, th e S ta te wa s n o t a b le to lo c a te th a t p e rso n u n til th e F rid a y n ig ht b e fo re

2 Tumlin’s statement reg arding Khorey was provided to the defense in timely discovery

.

7tria l, a n d th a t p e rso n re fu se d to sp e a k w i t h a n in v e stig a to r u n til th e fo llo win g

Mo n d a y m o rn in g. On th a t m o rn in g

– th e m o rn in g th e tria l b e g a n

– th e c o n ta c t

p e rso n p ro v id e d th e Sta te with a la st n a m e a n d p ho ne n u m b e r fo r Kh o re y

. Th e

in v e stig a to r wa s a

ble to id e n tify a n d sp e a k with Kh o re y Bra n c h fo r th e first tim e

a s th e ju ry wa s b e in g se le c te d.

Un d e r th e se c irc um sta nc e s, th e tria l c o u rt d id n o t a b u s e its d isc re tio n in

ru lin g th a t th e S ta te h a d e sta b lish e d go o d c a use fo r a llo win g a n e x c e p tio n to th e

te n -d a y ru le

. S e e P u g a -Ce ra n te s v

. S ta te

, 2 8 1 Ga

. 7 8, 8 0 (6 3 5 S E2 d 1 1 8 ) (2 0 0 6 )

(fin din g th a t g o o d c a

u se wa s sh o wn wh e re a witn e ss fle d p rio r to tria l a n d wa s

n o t lo c a te d a g a in u n til th e first d a y o f tria l). Th e c o u rt c o m p lie d with § 1 7 -1 6

-

8 (a ) b y g ra n tin g th e de fe n se a c o n tin u a n c e u n til n oo n th e f o l l o w i n g d a y to

in te rv ie w Bra n c h a

n d re v ie w h is sta te m e n t to th e in ve stig a to rs; Ap p e lla n t wa s

a lso e x c u se d fro m th e re q u ire m e n t o f o b ta in in g c e rtifie d c o p ie s o f Bra n c h ’s

p rio r c o n v ic tio n s fo r im

pe a c h m e nt. Ap p e lla n t sa y s th a t h e wa s pre ju d ic e d b y

t h e bre v ity o f th e c on tin u a n c e g ra n te d

, b u t “ [m ] e re sh o rtn e ss o f tim e

. . . d o e s

n o t ip so fa c to sh o w a d e n ia l o f th e rig h ts o f a n a c c u se d .” Liv in g sto n v. S ta te

,

2 6 6 G a

. 5 0 1

, 5 0 3 (4 6 7 S E 2 d 8 8 6 ) (1 9 9 6). S e e a lso W ilk in s v

. S ta te

, 2 9 1 Ga

.

4 8 3

, 4 8 7 (7 31 S E2 d 3 4 6 ) (2 0 1 2 ) (fin din g n o a b u se o f d isc re tio n in a llo win g a

8witn e ss to te stify d e sp ite h is n o t b e in g on th e S ta te ’s w itn e ss list wh e re th e c o urt

“ su sp e n d e d tria l o v e rn ig h t to a ffo rd a p pe lla nt to in te rv ie w th e witn e ss . . . a n d

re v ie w n o t e s re la te d to th e c o n te n t o f h is in te rv ie w b y po lic e ” ). Ap p e lla n t

sp e c ula te s th a t w ith a we e k -lo n g c o n tin u a n c e he m ig h t h a v e b e e n a b le to sh o w

th a t Bra nc h ’s te stim o n y wa s c o n c o c te d b y in v e stig a to rs, b u t A p p e lla n t o ffe re d

n o e v id e n c e a t th e m o tio n fo r n e w tria l h e a rin g

– h e ld m o re th an two y e a rs a fte r

tria l

– to su p p o rt th a t sp e c u la tio n

. Mo re o v e r, Ap p e lla n t wa s a ble to e ffe c tiv e ly

c ro ss-e x a m in e Bra n c h a n d im p e a c h h im usin g h is p rio r sta te m e n t t o t h e

in v e stig a to rs. S e e No rris v

. S ta te

, 2 8 9 Ga

. 1 5 4

, 1 5 6 -1 5 7 (7 0 9 S E2 d 7 9 2) (2 0 1 1 )

(fin din g n o a

b use o f d isc re tio n wh e re th e tria l c o u rt g a v e th e de fe nd a n t a n

o p p ortu n ity to in te rv ie w th e witn e sse s a n d th e d e fe n da n t i m p e a c he d th e m o st

im p o rta n t witn e ss with a

p rio r in c o n siste n t sta te m e nt).

4

. Ap pe lla n t cl a i ms th a t h is c e ll p ho ne n um be r a n d th e c e ll p h o n e

re c o rd s o b ta in e d u sin g th a t nu m b e r sh o u ld ha v e b e e n su p p re s s e d b e c a u se h e wa s

n o t g iv e n Mira n d a wa rn in g s b e fo re h e t o l d i n ve stig a to rs h is n u m b e r. S e e

Mira n d a v

. Ariz o n a

, 3 8 4 U.S

. 4 3 6 (8 6 S C t 1 6 0 2

, 1 6 LE2 d 6 9 4 ) (1 96 6 ). S e e a lso

Wo n g S u n v

. Un ite d S ta te s, 3 7 1 U.S

. 4 7 1

, 4 8 4 (8 3 S Ct 4 0 7

, 9 LE2 d 4 4 1 ) (1 9 6 3 )

(h o ld in g th a t e v id e n c e a c qu ire d a s th e “ fru it” o f un la wfu l p olic e a c tio n sh o u ld

9b e su p p re sse d ). We d isa g re e

.

“ Mira n d a wa rn in g s a re re q u ire d w h e n a p e rso n ‘is (1 ) fo rm a lly a rre ste d

o r (2 ) re stra in e d to th e d e g re e a s s o c i a te d with a fo rm a l a rre st.’ Un le ss a

re a so na b le p e rso n wo u ld p e rc e iv e th a t he is in c u sto d y

, Mira n d a warn in g s a re

n o t ne c e ssa ry .” F re e m a n v

. S ta te

, 2 9 5 Ga

. 8 2 0

, 8 22 -8 2 3 (7 6 4 S E2 d 3 9 0) (2 0 1 4 )

(c ita tio n s om itte d). T h e re c o rd i n t h i s c a se su p p o rts th e tria l c o u rt’s fin d in g s

th a t Ap p e lla n t d ro v e him se lf to th e p o lic e sta tio n a fte r b e in g a sk e d to sp e a k to

th e in ve stig a to rs; wh i l e th e p o lic e te m po ra rily to ok h is c a r k e y s so th a t th e y

c o u ld in sp e c t th e c a r i n h i s p r e se n c e

, h e wa s n o t re stra in e d in a n y w a y

, wa s

n e v e r to ld h e wa s u n d e r a rre st, a n d w as a l l o we d to sp e a k to h is m o th e r o n th e

p h o ne d u rin g th e in te rv ie w ; a n d

, wh e n h e a sk e d to le a v e

, he w a s a llo we d to d o

so

. S e e id

. a t 8 2 3 ( “ O n a p p e a l, th e issu e is w h e th e r th e tria l c o u rt wa s c le a rly

e rro n e ou s in its fa c tu a l fin d in g s re g ard in g th e a d m issib ility o f th e sta te m e n ts.”

(c ita tio n o m itte d )). Ac c o rd in g ly

, th e tria l c o u r t c o r r e c tly d e te rm in e d th a t

Ap p e lla n t wa s n o t in c usto d y d u r i n g t h e in te rv ie w a n d th u s n o t e n title d to

Mira n d a wa rn in g s. S e e T e a sle y v

. S ta te

, 2 9 3 Ga

. 75 8

, 7 62 (7 49 S E2 d 7 1 0 )

(2 0 1 3 ) (h o ld in g th a t a d e fe n d a n t wa s n ot in c u sto d y wh e n h e we n t to th e p o lic e

sta tio n o n h is o wn a c c o rd a n d wa s n o t re stra in e d in a n y wa y ); H ig hto we r v

.

1 0S ta te

, 2 72 Ga

. 4 2

, 4 3 (5 2 6 S E2 d 8 3 6 ) (2 0 0 0 ) (fin din g th a t a d e fe n d a n t wa s n o t

in c usto d y wh e re he v o lu n ta rily su bm itte d to a n in te r v i e w a t a p olic e sta tio n

,

c o o p e ra te d fu lly in a n swe rin g q u e stio n s, wa s n ot re stra in e d

, a n d p re se n te d n o

e v id e n c e th a t offic e rs ha d p la c e d a n y lim its o n h is fr e e d o m t o le a ve o r to

te rm in a te q ue stio nin g ). 3

Ap p e lla n t a lso c o n te n d s th a t h is c e ll p h o n e n u m b e r a n d re la te d c e ll p h o n e

re c o rd s sh o u ld h a ve b e e n su p p re sse d be c a use th e p o lic e c o n tin u e d to q u e stio n

h im a fte r h e re q u e ste d a

n a tto rn e y

. S e e Jo rd a n v

. S ta te

, 2 67 Ga

. 4 4 2

, 4 4 4 (4 8 0

S E2 d 1 8 ) (1 9 9 7 ) (“ La w e n fo rc e m e n t o ffic e rs m u st im m e d ia te ly c e a se

q u e stio n in g a su sp e c t w h o h a s c le a rly a sse rte d a rig h t to ha v e c o un se l p re se n t

d u rin g c u sto d ia l in te rro g a tio n .” (e m ph a s i s i n o rig in a l)). Th e tria l c o urt

su p p re sse d a ll o f A p p e lla n t’s sta te m e n ts m a d e a fte r th e po in t a t wh ic h h e

a rg u a b ly re q u e st e d co u n se l. Th e re c o rd sh o ws, h o we ve r, th a t Ap p e lla n t

3 Appellant claims, but the State denies, that the police considered him a suspect from the

moment he walked into the police station. Reg ardless, courts determine w hether a person is in

custody b ased upon the totality of the circumstances; Miranda warning s are n o t re q uired simply

because questioning takes place in a police station or because the p e r son being questioned is

considered a suspect by the police. See California v. B e heler, 463 U.S. 1 121, 1125 (103 SCt 3517,

77 L E2d 1275) (1983). I n fact, when it is undisclosed t o t h e interviewee, “a police officer’s

subjective view that the individual under q uestioning is a suspect

. . . does not bear upon the question

whet h er the individual is in custody for purposes of Miranda.” Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S.

318, 324 (114 SCt 1526, 128 L E2d 293) (1994).

1 1d isc lo se d h is c e ll p h o n e nu m b e r lo n g be fo re m e n tio nin g a la w y e r, so th e p h o n e

re la te d e v id e n c e wa s a lso n o t su p p re ssib le o n th is g ro u n d

.

5

. F in a lly

, Ap p e lla nt a r g u e s th a t h is c o n v ic tio n s sh o u ld b e re v e rse d

b e c a u se th e S ta te m a d e a

n u n d isc lo se d im m

u n ity o r le n ie nc y d e a l w ith Bra n c h

in e x c ha n g e fo r h is te stim o n y a g a in st Ap pe lla n t, in v io la tio n o f Gig lio v

. Un ite d

S ta te s, 4 05 U.S

. 1 5 0 (9 2 S Ct 7 6 3

, 31 LE2 d 1 04 ) (1 97 2 ). Ap p e lla n t a sse rts th a t

th e re m u st h a v e b e e n su c h a d e a l in p la c e a t tria l b e c a u se n o c h a rg e s h a v e b e e n

file d a ga in st Bra n c h in c o n n e c tio n with th e v ic tim ’s m urd e r e v e n th ou g h Bra n c h

su p p o se d ly im

p lic a te d h im se lf t h ro ug h h is te stim on y

. Ho we v e r, “ ‘[t] h e

su b se q u e n t disp o sitio n o f c h a rg e s a g a in st th e [witn e ss]

, sta n din g a lo n e

, d o e s n o t

e sta b lish th e e x iste n c e of a de a l.’” Wim e s v

. S ta te

, 2 9 3 Ga

. 3 6 1

, 3 63 (7 44 S E2 d

7 8 7 ) (2 0 1 3 ) (c ita tio n o m itte d ). Th e S ta te d e n ie d th e e x iste n c e of a de a l a t th e

m o tio n fo r n e w tria l he a rin g

, th e tria l c o u rt c re d ite d th a t re p re se n ta tio n

, a n d in

th e a b se n c e of a n y th in g b ut sp e c u la tio n to th e c o n tra ry

, we c a n no t sa y th a t th e

c o u rt’s fin d in g th a t th e re wa s n o d e a l with Bra n c h is c le arly e rro n e o us. S e e id

.

Ju d g m e n t a ffirm e d . All th e Ju stic e s c o nc u r.

1 2