A Whitfield County jury found Lonnie Inman guilty of aggravated sexual battery, OCGA § 16-6-22.2 b, and three counts of child molestation, OCGA § 16-6-4 a. Inman appeals from the order denying his motion for new trial, contending that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence his custodial statements and that the evidence adduced was insufficient to support his convictions. Finding no error, we affirm. 1. Inman contends the trial court erred in admitting his custodial statement, arguing that he did not understand his rights and that he was induced into making a statement by the hope of a benefit. For Inman’s “statements to be admissible, they must be voluntary.” Citation omitted. Vergara v. State , 283 Ga. 175, 178 1 657 SE2d 863 2008. Under the provisions of OCGA § 24-3-50, “to make a confession admissible, it must have been made voluntarily, without being induced by another by the slightest hope of benefit or remotest fear of injury.” We note that Inman’s reliance on the nine-factor analysis for determining the voluntariness of his statement as set forth in Reinhardt v. State , 263 Ga. 113, 115 3 b 428 SE2d 333 1993, is misplaced. The Georgia Supreme Court has recently clarified that “the explicit nine-factor analysis set forth in . . . Reinhardt applies only to the confessions of juveniles and not to those of adults.” Citations omitted. Vergara v. State , 283 Ga. at 177-178 1. Because Inman was over 18 “at the time of his statements, they are admissible if, considering the totality of the circumstances, they were made voluntarily, without being induced by hope of benefit or coerced by threats.” Citation and punctuation omitted. Id. at 178 1.
The record reveals that Inman, who was 58-years-old at the time of his custodial interview at the Whitfield County jail, was advised of his Miranda 1 rights verbally and in writing. Inman testified that he knew his rights “from TV,” and knew that he had the right to remain silent, that his statements could be used against him, and that he had a right to an attorney. He testified that he was not threatened and that the detectives made him no promises in exchange for his statements. The detectives testified that Inman did not appear to be under the influence of any intoxicants, that he understood his rights, and that he voluntarily signed a waiver-of-rights form, initialing each right after they were read to him. The interview lasted about 40 minutes, and Inman was not threatened or deprived of food, water, or restroom facilities. Although Inman argues in his brief that he could not have understood his right dues to his “limited mental capacity,” the record shows that Inman had completed the eleventh grade, that he had worked as a babysitter, and that he could answer complex questions and recall the details of past events. There was no test evidence introduced which demonstrated that Inman had a below-average IQ or was mentally or cognitively impaired such that he was incapable of understanding his rights.
