State v. Chulpayev

The trial court failed to consider whether the defendant's statements were obtained in violation of his constitutional rights and whether a subsequent statement was thus inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

On May 21, 2013, a Fulton County grand jury indicted Mani Chulpayev for the murder of Melvin Vernell, III and related crimes. The indictment also charged four other men, including Decensae White and Gary Bradford, with the murder and related crimes. On October 9, 2013, Chulpayev filed a pretrial motion to suppress statements that he made during interviews with Federal Bureau of Investigation FBI agents and Sandy Springs Police Department SSPD officers on July 30, 2012, October 24, 2012, and April 12, 2013, raising claims under both OCGA § 24-8-824 and the Constitution. After a four-day evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted the suppression motion as to the July and October 2012 interviews, ruling that Chulpayev’s statements were involuntary and thus inadmissible under § 24-8-824. But the court denied the motion as to the April 2013 interview, ruling that Chulpayev’s statements after his arrest that day were not involuntary under § 24-8-824 and that any taint from his previous statements had been eradicated.

In Case No. S14A1375, the State appeals the partial grant of Chulpayev’s suppression motion, and we affirm the trial court’s rulings based on OCGA § 24-8-824. In Case No. S14X1376, Chulpayev cross-appeals the partial denial of the suppression motion. We conclude that the trial court erred in its taint analysis, although it ultimately reached the right result as to Chulpayev’s statutory claim because statements that are inadmissible under § 24-8-824 do not taint evidence derived therefrom. The trial court did not decide whether Chulpayev’s statements were obtained in violation of his constitutional rights, however, so we must vacate the court’s judgment as to the April 2013 statements and remand the case for the court to rule on the constitutional claim.

State v. Chulpayev

The trial court failed to consider whether the defendant's statements were obtained in violation of his constitutional rights and whether a subsequent statement was thus inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report