Waylon George was fatally shot in the parking lot of a Cobb County apartment complex where he had arranged to meet someone to purchase cocaine.1 A woman who had accompanied the victim to the meeting place testified that a white sport utility vehicle with tinted windows drove up and parked on her side of the vehicle in which she and the victim sat. The driver of the SUV then moved the SUV so that the SUV’s passenger side was next to the victim’s side of the car. The victim left the car to throw away some trash and was shot in the chest as he returned to the car. The woman saw a person holding a gun lean out the window of the SUV at the time the victim was shot, and a .223-caliber cartridge casing was recovered from the scene. The victim’s cellular phone records reflected phone calls from a resident of the apartment complex, and the resident told investigating officers the victim had contacted both him and appellant in an effort to purchase several ounces of cocaine. The resident had arranged to meet the victim in the apartment complex’s parking lot to complete the drug transaction and had told appellant of the arrangement shortly before the victim was shot. Appellant told police he had sent two men to meet the victim in the parking lot and rob him, and gave police information about the weapon used to kill the victim. Telephone records indicated that appellant and one of the men he had sent to meet the victim had been in touch telephonically at least 16 times the day the victim was killed, including one phone call about twelve minutes before the police dispatch concerning the shooting and another phone call approximately four minutes after the dispatch. The two men sent by appellant, Lanny Frazier and Travis Wilson, were indicted with appellant and were found guilty of the charges in a trial that took place before appellant’s trial. 1. The evidence was sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes charged. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307 99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560 1979.
2. Contending that two incriminating statements he made during custodial interrogations were involuntary because they were improperly induced by hope of benefit, appellant sought suppression of the statements.2 Following a hearing held pursuant to Jackson v. Denno , 378 U.S. 368 84 SC 1774, 12 LE2d 908 1964, the trial court denied the motion after finding that neither statement was induced by an improper hope of benefit. Appellant now asserts that ruling as error.3
