Dozier v. State

24 Citing cases

  1. State v. Pauldo

    309 Ga. 130 (Ga. 2020)   Cited 6 times
    Noting that "basic biographical questions asked in relation to an arrest are an exception to Miranda because such ‘booking’ questions are unrelated to the investigation and serve a legitimate administrative need and therefore do not qualify as interrogation"

    In general, this Court must accept a trial court's findings of fact on a motion in limine unless they are clearly erroneous. Dozier v. State , 306 Ga. 29, 33 (4), 829 S.E.2d 131 (2019). However, because Pauldo's interview was both audio- and video-recorded, "the recording is part of the record on appeal, and the parties point to no evidence beyond the recorded interview to support their arguments regarding the admissibility" of the statement, "we review de novo the trial court's determinations of both fact and law."

  2. Lewis v. State

    311 Ga. 650 (Ga. 2021)   Cited 11 times
    Holding that there was no plain error in not giving the accomplice-corroboration instruction, because there was a "substantial amount" of evidence corroborating the accomplice’s testimony, making it unlikely that the outcome of the trial was affected; distinguishing a case where "almost all of the evidence incriminating" the defendant came from an accomplice

    This standard requires a suspect to "articulate his desire to have counsel present sufficiently clearly that a reasonable police officer in the circumstances would understand the statement to be a request for an attorney." Dozier v. State , 306 Ga. 29, 35, 829 S.E.2d 131 (2019) (citation and punctuation omitted). As a result, "ambiguous or equivocal" statements that a reasonable officer in light of the circumstances would have understood "only that the suspect might be invoking the right to counsel" are not enough, Taylor , 304 Ga. at 48, 816 S.E.2d 17 (emphasis in original), and "even a comment that a suspect would like counsel to be present in the future is not a clear and unambiguous request for counsel," Dozier , 306 Ga. at 35, 829 S.E.2d 131 (citation and punctuation omitted).

  3. Young v. State

    309 Ga. 529 (Ga. 2020)   Cited 15 times
    Concluding that assumed error in admission of photo showing defendant with a gun was harmless, in part because "any harmful effect that the photo may have had was diminished" given the 586other evidence "pertaining to other pictures of [the defendant] with guns"

    Young confines his argument to the issue of whether he knowingly and intelligently waived his Fifth Amendment rights under Miranda and never argues that he actually invoked his Fifth Amendment right to counsel, which would have required him to "articulate his desire to have counsel present sufficiently clearly that a reasonable police officer in the circumstances would understand the statement to be a request for an attorney." Dozier v. State , 306 Ga. 29, 35, 829 S.E.2d 131 (2019) (citation and punctuation omitted). A defendant may waive his rights under Miranda , "provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently."

  4. Beltran-Gonzales v. State

    317 Ga. 168 (Ga. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    "[O]ur case law contains no general mandate requiring trial courts, when responding to a jury's request for a recharge on a particular issue, to also recharge on all principles asserted in connection with that issue." Dozier v. State , 306 Ga. 29, 32-33 (3), 829 S.E.2d 131 (2019) (citation and punctuation omitted). Rather, when the jury does not request additional instructions, "the need, breadth, and formation of additional jury instructions are left to the sound discretion of the trial court."

  5. Edwards v. State

    357 Ga. App. 318 (Ga. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 1 times

    (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Dozier v. State , 306 Ga. 29, 35 (4) (b), 829 S.E.2d 131 (2019). And we view Edwards's comments in context.

  6. State v. Tripp

    No. S24A1032 (Ga. Dec. 20, 2024)

    Lucas v. State, 273 Ga. 88, 90 (2) (538 S.E.2d 44) (2000) (citations and punctuation omitted). See also Dozier v. State, 306 Ga. 29, 34 (4) (a) (829 S.E.2d 131) (2019) (holding that the test is whether "a reasonable police officer in the circumstances would understand the statement to be a request for an attorney").

  7. Salvesen v. State

    No. S23A0433 (Ga. Sep. 19, 2023)   Cited 5 times

    Id. at 23 (3). See also Dozier v. State, 306 Ga. 29, 32-33 (3) (829 S.E.2d 131) (2019) ("[O]ur case law contains no general mandate requiring trial courts, when responding to a jury's request for a recharge on a particular issue, to also recharge on all principles asserted in connection with that issue."); Sampson v. State, 279 Ga. 8, 10 (5) (608 S.E.2d 621) (2005) (where the jury requested the legal definitions of murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, and conspiracy, "it was within the trial court's discretion to limit the scope of the recharge to issues pertinent to the jury's request"); Salahuddin v. State, 277 Ga. 561, 564-565 (4) (592 S.E.2d 410) (2004) ("[W]here the jury requests further instructions upon a particular phase of the case, the court in its discretion may recharge them in full, or only upon the point or points requested." (punctuation and emphasis omitted)). Accordingly, the trial court acted within its discretion, and

  8. Locklear v. State

    317 Ga. 115 (Ga. 2023)

    But neither that statement nor Locklear's subsequent silence was "an invocation of his right to remain silent, let alone an ‘unequivocal and unambiguous’ one." Dozier v. State , 306 Ga. 29, 34 (4) (a), 829 S.E.2d 131 (2019). A reasonable law enforcement officer instead would have understood Locklear's statement to mean only that he did not want to discuss in greater detail what happened in relation to Long's truck, not that he did not want to speak to police at all.

  9. Downer v. State

    314 Ga. 617 (Ga. 2022)   Cited 4 times
    Holding that appellant’s repeated references to the fact that he was speaking to authorities against the advice of counsel did not render his statement inadmissible

    Thus, we conclude that the trial court did not err in determining that these statements were not a clear and unambiguous request for counsel. See Dozier v. State , 306 Ga. 29, 35 (4) (b), 829 S.E.2d 131 (2019) ("[T]he mere mention of the word ‘attorney’ or ‘lawyer’ without more, does not automatically invoke the right to counsel." (citation and punctuation omitted)).

  10. Ellis v. State

    312 Ga. 243 (Ga. 2021)   Cited 3 times
    Finding that the trial court did not err in determining that counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to a detective's narration of a surveillance video

    Ellis does not challenge the admission of his statement on the ground that it was involuntary under the constitutional due process standard, and so we do not address that issue. See Dozier v. State , 306 Ga. 29, 36 (4) (c), 829 S.E.2d 131 (2019). "To use a defendant's custodial statements in its case-in-chief, the State must show that the defendant was advised of his Miranda rights and that he voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived them."