After police officers discovered that James Edward Johnson had been robbed and stabbed to death in his home, they located Appellee Kathi Davison, who initially denied that that was her name. Since the officers already knew who she was, they threatened to arrest her for giving a false name, and Detective Walker went to get handcuffs. Before she was restrained, however, she was told that the officers needed to talk with her about the victim because she was known to be acquainted with him. She indicated that he was like a father to her, and she began crying and agreed to go with Detective Scandrett to the police station for an interview. Another woman accompanied and consoled her. When Walker returned, he placed the handcuffs in his pocket, and Appellee was not placed under formal arrest. As Appellee entered the police car, she volunteered that Calvin Grizzard killed the victim. At the police station, she gave a videotaped interview, in which Scandrett advised her that she was not under arrest, and she told him that Grizzard attacked her and Johnson. Appellee was not advised of her constitutional rights under Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U. S. 436 86 SC 1602, 16 LE2d 694 1966. After the interview, she was driven back to her home. Police subsequently discovered that, contrary to Appellee’s statements, Grizzard was in Alabama at the time of the crimes. She was indicted for malice murder of Johnson, two alternative counts of felony murder, aggravated assault, and armed robbery. 1. Pursuant to Appellee’s request, the trial court held a hearing to determine the voluntariness of her statements under Jackson v. Denno , 378 U. S. 368 84 SC 1774, 12 LE2d 908 1964. At the hearing, Scandrett and Walker testified, and the videotape of the interview was played. However, Appellee did not testify. The trial court found that, prior to Appellee’s statements, the police officers clearly communicated to her that she was about to be taken into custody and was not free to leave, and, “when they asked for the statement, a reasonable person could say that if I don’t give them what they want, then I’m going to be arrested, and that would be the kind of duress that the law does not allow.” The trial court orally excluded the videotaped statement and subsequently entered a written order that all of the statements in question be suppressed, since they “were the result of coercive government activity.” The State appeals directly from this order pursuant to OCGA § 5-7-1 a 4. See State v. Nash , 279 Ga. 646, 648 1 619 SE2d 684 2005.
On appeal, “the trial court’s findings as to disputed facts will be upheld unless clearly erroneous and the trial court’s application of the law to undisputed facts is subject to de novo review. Cit.” State v. Nash , supra at 648 2. In this case, . . . there are no disputed facts and no credibility issues. Cit. Only the officers testified, and the videotape of Appellee’s interview is demonstrative objective proof of the circumstances surrounding her statements. Therefore, the question presented for resolution is whether the trial court erred in its legal conclusion that, under this undisputed evidence, Appellee’s statements were inadmissible because they “were the result of coercive government activity.” In resolving this issue, “it is the duty of this Court to independently review the evidence to determine whether the State has carried its burden of proving the admissibility of Appellee’s statements by a preponderance of the evidence. Cit.’ Cit. State v. Roberts , 273 Ga. 514-515 1 543 SE2d 725 2001.
