Watson v. State

The totality of the circumstances supported the trial court's finding that defendant knowingly and voluntarily consented to the search of his home and car.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

A jury found Tiree Watson guilty of armed robbery, two counts of aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. On appeal, Watson contends that the trial court erred in failing to suppress evidence obtained during an allegedly improper search of his house and car. Watson also contends that the trial court erred in failing to sua sponte instruct the jury on venue. As Watson’s contentions lack merit, we affirm. 1. Viewed in a light most favorable to support the jury’s verdict,1 the record reveals that, on July 17, 1999, Watson’s car was seen leaving the scene of an armed robbery. The victim, a store clerk, testified that two men wearing masks robbed him at gunpoint, and that one of the robbers struck him on the back of his head with a handgun. When asked to identify the guns used, the clerk testified that one was a “tech nine” and the other was “a chrome 380.”

Detective Jeff Glazier called Watson, told him that his car had been seen leaving the scene of the crime, and asked him to come to the police station to give a statement. Rather than waiting for Watson to come to the station, however, Glazier drove to Watson’s apartment. Upon reaching the apartment, Glazier knocked on the door, and Watson answered. Glazier introduced both himself and his partner and asked if they could come inside the apartment. Watson said ” ‘yes,’ ” and Glazier and his partner entered the living room. Before letting Watson sit down on the sofa, Glazier lifted the cushions to ensure that there were no weapons within Watson’s reach. According to Glazier, Watson signed a form, waiving his Miranda rights. The form specified that Watson was “ suspected of the offense of armed robbery.”

Watson v. State

The totality of the circumstances supported the trial court's finding that defendant knowingly and voluntarily consented to the search of his home and car.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report