Carlos Smith was charged with malice murder and related offenses in connection with the shooting death of Geraldo Olivares. At trial, eyewitness testimony identified Smith as the shooter. In addition, the prosecution introduced his confession. The jury found him guilty of malice murder and possession of a firearm while attempting to rob Mr. Olivares. On a separate count of possessing a firearm by a first offender probationer, Smith waived jury trial and, after a bench trial, he was found guilty of that crime. The trial court entered judgments of conviction, and then imposed a life sentence for murder and five-year sentences for the firearm offenses. Smith’s motion for new trial was denied, and he appeals. 1 1. Smith does not enumerate the general grounds. However, an independent review of the transcript reveals that the evidence, when construed most strongly in support of the jury’s verdicts and the trial court’s finding of guilt, it is sufficient to find him guilty of malice murder and the two weapons charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U. S. 307 99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560 1979.
2. Smith filed a motion to suppress, asserting that he was initially detained illegally and that this illegal detention tainted all that followed, including his confession and the seizure of his clothing. However, the trial court denied the motion, and allowed the prosecution to introduce the evidence. Smith enumerates that evidentiary ruling as error. “On reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, evidence is construed most favorably to uphold the findings and judgment and the trial court’s findings on disputed facts and credibility must be accepted unless clearly erroneous. Cit.” Cit. Aranda v. State , 226 Ga. App. 157 486 SE2d 379 1997. Applying that standard here, the trial court was authorized to find that, based on an anonymous tip, Officer Harris located Smith, who was standing outside with a group of other men, and asked him for identification. After confirming Smith’s identity, the policeman returned the identification and asked if Smith would be willing to wait until Detective Walker, who was investigating the murder of Mr. Olivares, could arrive. According to Officer Harris, he told Smith that he was not under arrest. The policeman also testified that Smith spoke with him voluntarily and agreed to sit and wait in the patrol car and then go with Detective Walker for questioning. In the course of his investigation, the detective had viewed a videotape of the homicide made by a security camera at a nearby apartment complex. He also had received information that the first name of the gunman was Carlos and that Carlos lived on Lexington Street with his grandmother. When Detective Walker arrived on the scene a short while after being summoned by Officer Harris, he determined that Smith’s first name was Carlos, that Smith was wearing clothing which was similar to that worn by the shooter on the videotape. and that Carlos lived on Lexington Street with his grandmother. The detective asked Smith if he would come to the homicide office to discuss the murder, and Smith agreed to go. t-126. After he agreed to Detective Walker’s request, Smith apparently was first transported to a precinct by Officer Harris and then to the homicide office by Detective Walker. There, Smith was given the warnings mandated by Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U. S. 436 86 SC 1602, 16 LE2d 694 1966. He waived his constitutional rights in writing, and then made the statement admitting his guilt.
