Opinion ID: 1267972
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Eugene Booher's Appeal

Text: 6. Booher also challenges the use of his custodial statement at the trial of their case. While being transported to the jail, Booher was read his Miranda rights, and commented: I wonder where I could get an attorney at this time of night. After arriving, he signed a waiver of his rights and gave a statement to the police. He complains on appeal that after having made an admittedly equivocal request for an attorney, the police erred in questioning him on any aspect of his case before clarifying that request. Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U. S. 477, 484 (101 SC 1880, 68 LE2d 378) (1981). Booher testified at the Jackson-Denno hearing, however, that when he reached the interrogation room, he was given a written copy of his Miranda rights, which he read and fully understood, but he did not want an attorney present at that time. He was told that attorneys were available 24 hours per day and was given an opportunity to use the telephone, but he refused and said he just wanted to talk. Booher's testimony at the hearing that he changed his mind in the middle of his statement to the police was not supported by the taperecorded statement and the trial court did not so find. Based on this evidence, the decision of the trial court that Booher waived his right to have an attorney present and that the statement was knowing and voluntary is not clearly erroneous. High v. State, 233 Ga. 153 (210 SE2d 673) (1974). Having found no reversible error, we affirm the convictions of defendants Broomall and Booher. Judgments affirmed. All the Justices concur.