Sosniak v. State

No reasonable person in the defendant's position when interviewed by an investigating detective at the Criminal Investigations Division of the Sheriff's Office would have believed that he was in custody prior to when the detective read him his Miranda rights.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

This is an interim appellate review of a case in which the State seeks the death penalty. Marcin “Martin” Sosniak and his co-defendants, Jason McGhee and Frank Ortegon, have been indicted for four counts each of malice murder and felony murder in connection with the deaths of Kyle Jones, Mariel Hannah, William Osment, and Lynn Bartlett, as well as for related crimes. The crimes occurred on March 19, 2006, at a residence in Forsyth County. This Court granted Sosniak’s application for interim review and directed the parties to address whether the trial court erred in its order denying Sosniak’s motion to exclude his statements to law enforcement officers and any evidence obtained as a result and in its order addressing the admissibility of certain victim impact evidence. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. 1. Sosniak claims that the trial court erred in finding admissible statements that he made to Detectives Moore and Cox of the Forsyth County Sheriff’s Office on March 20, March 23, and March 29, 2006. “The trial court determines the admissibility of a defendant’s statement under the preponderance of the evidence standard considering the totality of the circumstances. Cit.” Vergara v. State , 283 Ga. 175, 176 657 SE2d 863 2008. “Unless clearly erroneous, a trial court’s findings as to factual determinations and credibility relating to the admissibility of the defendant’s statement at a Jackson-Denno hearing will be upheld on appeal. Cit.” Grier v. State , 273 Ga. 363, 365 2 541 SE2d 369 2001. See Jackson v. Denno , 378 U. S. 368 84 SC 1774, 12 LE2d 908 1964. However, ” ‘where controlling facts are not in dispute, . . . such as those facts discernible from a videotape, our review is de novo. Cit.” Vergara , 283 Ga. at 178 1.

A. Statements of March 20, 2006.

Sosniak v. State

No reasonable person in the defendant's position when interviewed by an investigating detective at the Criminal Investigations Division of the Sheriff's Office would have believed that he was in custody prior to when the detective read him his Miranda rights.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report