Brazell v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Brazell v. State

231 S.E.2d 105, 140 Ga. App. 340, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 1460

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided October 22, 1976·No. 52965·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Deen, Presiding Judge.

This appeal from a conviction for cattle theft is on the sole ground that the court allowed a purported confession to be considered by the jury without first making an affirmative ruling on its voluntariness, and without setting forth specific findings of fact and conclusions of law. "The trial judge need not make formal findings of fact or write an opinion, but it must clearly appear from the record that he made a primary finding of voluntariness before the confession was introduced. Hilliard v. State, 128 Ga. App. 157, 158 (195 SE2d 772); Sims v. Georgia, 385 U. S. 538 (87 SC 639, 17 LE2d 593). The court heard evidence in the absence of the jury on the circumstances and contents of the defendant’s incriminatory statement, and ruled: "The court finds that it was freely and voluntarily made, and the court’s going to admit it as a statement.” No error appears.

Judgment affirmed.

Webb and Smith, JJ., concur. *341 John W. Underwood, District Attorney, Dupont K. Cheney, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Deen, Presiding Judge.

This appeal from a conviction for cattle theft is on the sole ground that the court allowed a purported confession to be considered by the jury without first making an affirmative ruling on its voluntariness, and without setting forth specific findings of fact and conclusions of law. "The trial judge need not make formal findings of fact or write an opinion, but it must clearly appear from the record that he made a primary finding of voluntariness before the confession was introduced. Hilliard v. State, 128 Ga. App. 157, 158 (195 SE2d 772); Sims v. Georgia, 385 U. S. 538 (87 SC 639, 17 LE2d 593). The court heard evidence in the absence of the jury on the circumstances and contents of the defendant’s incriminatory statement, and ruled: "The court finds that it was freely and voluntarily made, and the court’s going to admit it as a statement.” No error appears.

Judgment affirmed.

Webb and Smith, JJ., concur. *341 John W. Underwood, District Attorney, Dupont K. Cheney, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

Brazell v. State, 231 S.E.2d 105, 140 Ga. App. 340, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 1460 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

231 S.E.2d 105 (Brazell v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related