Edwards v. State

9 Citing cases

  1. Ellis v. State

    642 S.E.2d 869 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 5 times
    In Ellis v. State, 283 Ga.App. 808, 642 S.E.2d 869 (2007), one of the very few cases in which we considered a sufficiency of the evidence challenge to a conviction under OCGA § 16–12–1(b)(3), the defendant left two children, ages one and two, home alone on a very cold morning for what he claimed was only a few minutes while he purportedly assisted a neighbor.

    Whether Ellis made his statement as a result of interrogation was a question of fact for the trial court, and we find no error in the court's conclusion that no interrogation occurred. See Edwards v. State, 220 Ga. App. 74, 77 (2) ( 467 SE2d 379) (1996); Syfrett v. State, 210 Ga. App. 185, 186-187 (3) ( 435 SE2d 470) (1993). We have held many times that the asking of general booking questions such as one's name, address, and birth date does not constitute an interrogation.

  2. Horne v. State

    231 Ga. App. 864 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 9 times
    Holding that the trial court implicitly allowed the amendment of the new trial motion by stating it had considered the appellant's brief and citation of authority therein

    See F. A. F. Motor Cars v. Childers, 181 Ga. App. 821, 823 (4) ( 354 S.E.2d 6) (1987) (mentioning new ground in oral hearing did not amend motion for new trial). 220 Ga. App. 74, 75 (1) ( 467 S.E.2d 379) (1996). Id. at 75.

  3. Franks v. State

    268 Ga. 238 (Ga. 1997)   Cited 41 times
    Holding that " well-established line of federal and state case law has created an exemption from the Miranda rule for questions attendant to arrest, because such questions are not related to the investigation of the case, and at the same time serve a legitimate administrative need"

    The Fifth Amendment requires the exclusion of any statement made by an accused during custodial interrogation, unless he has been advised of his rights and has voluntarily waived those rights. Miranda, supra. A well-established line of federal and state case law has created an exemption from the Miranda rule for questions attendant to arrest, because such questions are not related to the investigation of the case, and at the same time serve a legitimate administrative need. See, e.g., Muniz, supra; Edwards v. State, 220 Ga. App. 74, 76-77 (2) ( 467 S.E.2d 379) (1996); Mincey v. State, 257 Ga. 500, 506 (10) ( 360 S.E.2d 578) (1987). The Court in Muniz specifically referred to questions asked to secure "biographical data necessary to complete booking or pretrial services."

  4. Beasley v. State

    761 S.E.2d 509 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 1 times

    The court implicitly allowed an amendment of the new trial motion. The claim is reviewable.”); see also Edwards v. State, 220 Ga.App. 74, 75(1), 467 S.E.2d 379 (1996). Here, the trial court's order denying the motion for new trial notes that the motion was denied after the court “read and considered” the motion, held a hearing as to same, and “considered the arguments made.”

  5. Merritt v. State

    288 Ga. App. 89 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 16 times
    Affirming trial court's holding that defendant opened the door to character evidence by testifying as to his feeling of remorse

    (Footnote omitted.) Franks v. State, 268 Ga. 238, 239 ( 486 SE2d 594) (1997), citing Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U. S. 582, 600-601 (III) (C) (110 SC 2638, 110 LE2d 528) (1990); Edwards v. State, 220 Ga. App. 74, 76-77 (2) ( 467 SE2d 379) (1996); Mincey v. State, 257 Ga. 500, 506 (10) ( 360 SE2d 578) (1987).Franks, supra at 240.

  6. Johnson v. State

    592 S.E.2d 507 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 9 times

    Neither is this a case in which only "booking" information was sought. Compare Edwards v. State, 220 Ga. App. 74, 76-77(2) ( 467 S.E.2d 379) (1996). Indeed, before asking Johnson his name, Commander Heaton asked him several potentially incriminating questions related to the commission of the obstruction offense alleged under Count 3 of the indictment.

  7. Madge v. State

    245 Ga. App. 848 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 18 times

    Edwards v. State. Asking for a person's name and birth date during the process of an arrest is not reasonably likely to elicit a response which incriminates one in the commission of a crime and, therefore, is not interrogation. Id.; Mincey v. State. The trial court properly denied the motion in limine. Edwards v. State, 220 Ga. App. 74 ( 467 S.E.2d 379) (1996).Mincey v. State, 257 Ga. 500, 507 (10) ( 360 S.E.2d 578) (1987).

  8. Brooks v. State

    237 Ga. App. 546 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 8 times

    We note that [a] well-established line of federal and state case law has created an exemption from the Miranda rule for questions attendant to arrest, because such questions are not related to the investigation of the case, and at the same time serve a legitimate administrative need. See, e.g., [ Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582 ( 110 S.C. 2638, 110 L.Ed.2d 528) (1990)]; Edwards v. State, 220 Ga. App. 74, 76-77 (2) ( 467 S.E.2d 379) (1996); Mincey v. State, 257 Ga. 500, 506 (10) ( 360 S.E.2d 578) (1987). (Footnote omitted.)

  9. Darden v. State

    233 Ga. App. 353 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 7 times

    "In the absence of testimony to the contrary, counsel's actions [including the decision not to call any witnesses] are presumed strategic[,]" Earnest v. State, 262 Ga. 494, 496-497 ( 422 S.E.2d 188) (1992), and we find no error in the trial court's ruling on this issue.Edwards v. State, 220 Ga. App. 74, 75 ( 467 S.E.2d 379) (1996) ("A trial court's finding that a defendant has been afforded effective assistance of counsel must be upheld unless clearly erroneous." (Citations and punctuation omitted.)