Rodney Michael Reaves was indicted for the murder of his 11-year old daughter and for related crimes, and the State gave notice of its intent to seek the death penalty. This Court granted interim review and directed the parties to address the following three questions: 1 whether the trial court erred in denying a motion to suppress Reaves’ statements; 2 whether the trial court erred in denying a motion to suppress evidence seized with warrants; and 3 whether the trial court erred in refusing Reaves’ request to have a video recording of his custodial statements examined by the FBI. Reaves’ wife was also charged with murder and related offenses, and interim review was granted in her case, which is decided today in Case Number S08A0126. 1. On the morning of December 1, 2003, Reaves called 911 and led law enforcement officers to his daughter’s bedroom, where she lay dead, having sustained numerous injuries. After an apparently consensual initial interaction, Reaves at some point gave officers a physical demonstration of his version of the events leading up to the child’s death. One to two hours subsequent to the officers’ arrival, Reaves was advised of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U. S. 436 86 SC 1602, 16 LE2d 694 1966, waived those rights, and gave a second demonstration which was videotaped. He was then informed that he was under arrest. Thereafter, the officers transported Reaves to the police station and made another video recording, which shows a second reading and waiver of his Miranda rights, followed by a lengthy police interrogation.
In its order on the motion to suppress Reaves’ pre-trial statements, the trial court found simply that Reaves “was advised of each of his Miranda rights, that he understood them, that he voluntarily waived them, and that he thereafter gave his statements freely and voluntarily without any hope of benefit or fear of injury.” ” ‘ ” ‘Factual and credibility determinations made by a trial judge after a suppression hearing are accepted by appellate courts unless clearly erroneous. Cit.’ Cit.” ‘ Cit.” Baldwin v. State , 263 Ga. 524, 525 1 435 SE2d 926 1993. The trial court’s findings of fact are supported by uncontradicted evidence in the record to the extent that they pertain to the first Miranda waiver and subsequent physical demonstration, as well as the second Miranda waiver and subsequent lengthy interrogation. However, the findings of the trial court are clearly erroneous with respect to statements which Reaves made at his home prior to any Miranda warning.
