Haynes v. State

The trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion to suppress his voluntary custodial statement on the basis that it violated his right to counsel, since the defendant initiated the interview and waived his right to counsel prior to giving the contested statement.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Defendant Erik Estrada Haynes was convicted and sentenced for malice murder, multiple counts of armed robbery and aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.1 He appeals, asserting, inter alia, the trial court erred in refusing to suppress an incriminating statement he made to police. Finding no error, we affirm. Defendant and two other individuals were participants in back-to-back robberies and shootings at two separate, but nearby, locations. One of the victims, Lawrence Chambliss, was shot and killed at the second location as he tried to flee. The crimes occurred within minutes of each other and ballistic evidence linked the crime scenes together. Defendant was identified by eyewitnesses as one of the perpetrators at each location. He subsequently contacted one of the eyewitnesses who identified him as a perpetrator in the first robbery and offered her money to say she did not see him. In a statement to police, defendant admitted he was present at each crime scene, but he claimed that another participant carried and fired the weapon.

1. The evidence was sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to find defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes for which he was convicted. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U. S. 307 99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560 1979. The credibility of the witnesses and conflicts in the evidence are matters within the province of the finder of fact, not this Court. Kelly v. State , 270 Ga. 523, 525 1 511 SE2d 169 1999.

Haynes v. State

The trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion to suppress his voluntary custodial statement on the basis that it violated his right to counsel, since the defendant initiated the interview and waived his right to counsel prior to giving the contested statement.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report