Murray v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Murray v. State

252 S.E.2d 68, 148 Ga. App. 639, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 1585

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 9, 1979

Docket56877

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 252 S.E.2d 68 (Murray v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Murray v. State, 252 S.E.2d 68, 148 Ga. App. 639, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 1585 (Ga. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Smith, Judge.

Murray’s appeal from his conviction of armed robbery alleges as error the admission of his confession and the overruling of his motion for new trial on the general grounds. We affirm.

1. "When a trial judge has made a determination as to the voluntariness of a confession after a suppression hearing, such determination must be accepted by the [640]*640appellate courts unless his decision is clearly erroneous.” Gibbs v. State, 235 Ga. 480, 483 (220 SE2d 254) (1975). The trial court’s determination, after a Jackson-Denno hearing, was not clearly erroneous. The voluntariness issue was presented to the jury on proper instruction. We find no error in the court’s treatment of the issue.

Submitted November 13, 1978 Decided January 9, 1979. A. Frank Grimsley, for appellant. D. E. Turk, District Attorney, Gary C. Christy, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

2. Appellant’s accomplice testified that appellant participated in the robbery. In addition to the confession and the accomplice’s testimony, the incriminating evidence included the testimony of the victim and the evidence of appellant’s flight. The trial court did not err in finding the general grounds to be without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

Deen, P. J., and Banke, J., concur.

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

Smith, Judge.

Murray’s appeal from his conviction of armed robbery alleges as error the admission of his confession and the overruling of his motion for new trial on the general grounds. We affirm.

1. "When a trial judge has made a determination as to the voluntariness of a confession after a suppression hearing, such determination must be accepted by the [640]*640appellate courts unless his decision is clearly erroneous.” Gibbs v. State, 235 Ga. 480, 483 (220 SE2d 254) (1975). The trial court’s determination, after a Jackson-Denno hearing, was not clearly erroneous. The voluntariness issue was presented to the jury on proper instruction. We find no error in the court’s treatment of the issue.

Submitted November 13, 1978 Decided January 9, 1979. A. Frank Grimsley, for appellant. D. E. Turk, District Attorney, Gary C. Christy, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

2. Appellant’s accomplice testified that appellant participated in the robbery. In addition to the confession and the accomplice’s testimony, the incriminating evidence included the testimony of the victim and the evidence of appellant’s flight. The trial court did not err in finding the general grounds to be without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

Deen, P. J., and Banke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

252 S.E.2d 68, 148 Ga. App. 639, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 1585, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murray-v-state-gactapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack