State v. Billings

5 Citing cases

  1. State v. Berrien

    No. A22A0448 (Ga. Ct. App. Jun. 9, 2022)

    And here, even if the detectives became more convinced as the interview progressed that they had probable cause to arrest Berrien, an intent to arrest in the future is irrelevant to the custody determination "unless the police communicate [that] intent during the course of the interrogation." State v. Billings, 303 Ga.App. 419, 421 (693 S.E.2d 627) (2010). No such intent to arrest was communicated to Berrien here.

  2. State v. Berrien

    364 Ga. App. 217 (Ga. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 6 times

    And here, even if the detectives became more convinced as the interview progressed that they had probable cause to arrest Berrien, an intent to arrest in the future is irrelevant to the custody determination "unless the police communicate [that] intent during the course of the interrogation." State v. Billings , 303 Ga. App. 419, 421, 693 S.E.2d 627 (2010). No such intent to arrest was communicated to Berrien here.

  3. Flemister v. State

    317 Ga. App. 749 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 16 times
    Holding that there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute when the drugs were packaged into separate baggies, and a police lieutenant testified that, based on his training and experience, the baggies were the type commonly used for packaging marijuana for distribution

    (Citations and punctuation omitted.) State v. Billings, 303 Ga.App. 419, 419–420, 693 S.E.2d 627 (2010). See Miranda, 384 U.S. at 478–479(III), 492(V), 86 S.Ct. 1602. It is undisputed that Flemister, who had been arrested and placed in the back of a patrol car, was in police custody when he requested the green jacket.

  4. Thompson v. State

    313 Ga. App. 844 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 7 times
    Holding that “after producing drug paraphernalia, admitting to owning same, and admitting to recently buying and using drugs, a reasonable person would certainly perceive himself to be in police custody”

    The court sua sponte reconsidered its decision, but maintained its earlier ruling. 12. CompareState v. Billings, 303 Ga.App. 419, 420, 693 S.E.2d 627 (2010) (holding that defendant was not in custody after officer discovered pills on his person and defendant admitted that he intended to sell the pills, because the contraband was not confiscated and defendant was not restrained while officer left for approximately 30 minutes to question witnesses). 13. SeeJackson v. State, 272 Ga. 191, 194(3), 528 S.E.2d 232 (2000) (“A reasonable person in [the defendant's] position, having just confessed to involvement in a crime in the presence of law enforcement officers would, from that time forward, perceive himself to be in custody, and expect that his future freedom of action would be significantly curtailed.

  5. Anguiano v. State

    313 Ga. App. 449 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 4 times

    (Citation omitted.) State v. Billings, 303 Ga.App. 419, 421, 693 S.E.2d 627 (2010). See Sosniak v. State, 287 Ga. 279, 281(1)(a)(1), 695 S.E.2d 604 (2010).