High v. State, 210 S.E.2d 673 (Ga. 1974). · Go Syfert
High v. State, 210 S.E.2d 673 (Ga. 1974). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
200 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Chandler v. State (gactapp, 2003-06-12)
Treatment trajectory · 1974 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1974 2000 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 40 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Chandler v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
Mangold v. State, 253 Ga. App. 369, 372-373 (3) ( 559 SE2d 103 ) (2002). 1 Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979). 2 High v. State, 233 Ga. 153, 154 (1) ( 210 SE2d 673 ) (1974). 3 Ingram v. State, 137 Ga. App. 412, 413 (1) ( 224 SE2d 527 ) (1976). 4 OCGA § 24-3-50. 5 King v. State, 155 Ga. 707, 715-716 ( 118 SE 368 ) (1923); Turner v. State, 203 Ga. 770, 771 (2) ( 48 SE2d 522 ) (1948); Caffo v. State, 247 Ga. 751, 757 (3) ( 279 SE2d 678 ) (1981). 6 State v. Roberts, 273 Ga. 514, 517 (4) ( 543 SE2d 725 ) (2001) (citing Coker v. State, 199 Ga. 20, 25 (2) ( 33 SE2d 1…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Griffin v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
Andrews, P. J., and Phipps, J., concur. 1 High v. State, 233 Ga. 153, 154 (1) ( 210 SE2d 673 ) (1974). 2 Ingram v. State, 137 Ga. App. 412, 413 (1) ( 224 SE2d 527 ) (1976). 3 OCGA § 24-3-50. 4 King v. State, 155 Ga. 707, 715-716 ( 118 SE 368 ) (1923); Turner v. State, 203 Ga. 770, 771 (2) ( 48 SE2d 522 ) (1948); Caffo v. State, 247 Ga. 751, 757 (3) ( 279 SE2d 678 ) (1981). 5 State v. Roberts, 273 Ga. 514, 517 (4) ( 543 SE2d 725 ) (2001) (citing Coker v. State, 199 Ga. 20, 25 (2) ( 33 SE2d 171 ) (1945)). 6 256 Ga. 234, 235 (2) ( 347 SE2d 553 ) (1986). 7 Id. 8 Id. 9 Stephens v. State, 164 Ga. A…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hammett v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
But “[t]he fact that a confession has been made under a spiritual exhortation, a promise of secrecy, or a promise of collateral benefit shall not exclude it.” OCGA § 24-3-51. 3 Wilson v. State, 211 Ga. App. 457 (1) ( 439 SE2d 685 ) (1993). 4 High v. State, 233 Ga. 153, 154 (1) ( 210 SE2d 673 ) (1974). 5 Tucker v. State, 231 Ga. App. 210, 213 (1) (a) ( 498 SE2d 774 ) (1998). 6 See, e.g., Miller v. State, 235 Ga. App. 724, 725 ( 510 SE2d 560 ) (1998) (absent written notice required by OCGA § 17-16-2 (a), provisions of OCGA § 17-16-4 (a) do not apply).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Riley v. State
Ga. · 1987 · confidence medium
Lego v. Twomey, 404 U. S. 477, 489 (92 SC 619, 30 LE2d 618) (1972); High v. State, 233 Ga. 153, 154 (210 *93 SE2d 673) (1974).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Perry v. State (2×)
Ga. · 1986 · confidence medium
Lego v. Twomey, 404 U. S. 477, 489 (92 SC 619, 30 LE2d 618) (1972); High v. State, 233 Ga. 153, 154 ( 210 SE2d 673 ) (1974).
examined Cited as authority (rule) In re V. T. (3×) also: Cited "see"
Ga. Ct. App. · 1983 · confidence medium
See Lego v. Twomey, 404 U. S. 477 (92 SC 619, 30 LE2d 618); High v. State, 233 Ga. 153, 154 ( 210 SE2d 673 ).
examined Cited as authority (rule) In Re VT (3×) also: Cited "see"
Ga. Ct. App. · 1983 · confidence medium
See Lego v. Twomey, 404 U. S. 477 (92 SC 619, 30 LE2d 618); High v. State, 233 Ga. 153, 154 ( 210 SE2d 673 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Goss v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1983 · confidence medium
We find that the trial court’s admission of the statement was not clearly erroneous. “ ‘Factual and credibility determinations of this sort made by a trial judge after a suppression hearing must be accepted by appellate courts unless such determinations are clearly erroneous.’ ” High v. State, 233 Ga. 153, 154 ( 210 SE2d 673 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Eidson v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1983 · confidence medium
See Durden v. State, 250 Ga. 325, 327 (2) ( 297 SE2d 237 ); High v. State, 233 Ga. 153, 154 (1) ( 210 SE2d 673 ); Johnson v. State, 233 Ga. 58 ( 209 SE2d 629 ); Lee v. State, 154 Ga. App. 562, 563 ( 269 SE2d 65 ).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Rosser v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1981 · confidence medium
We must accept those factual determinations by the trial court unless those findings are shown to be clearly erroneous (High v. State, 233 Ga. 153, 154 ( 210 SE2d 673 )), and they are not so shown.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Young v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1981 · confidence medium
High v. State, 233 Ga. 153, 154 ( 210 SE2d 673 ) (1974).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Burt v. State6
Ga. Ct. App. · 1980 · confidence medium
From conflicting evidence the trial court found the statements were admissible. “ ‘Factual and credibility determinations of this sort made by atrial judge after a suppression hearing must be accepted by appellate courts unless such determinations are clearly erroneous.’ ” High v. State, 233 Ga. 153, 154 ( 210 SE2d 673 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Booker v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1980 · confidence medium
Both stated that the officer told them it would be easier on them if they confessed. “ ‘Factual and credibility determinations of this sort made by a trial judge after a suppression hearing must be accepted by appellate courts unless such determinations are clearly erroneous.’ ” High v. State, 233 Ga. 153, 154 ( 210 SE2d 673 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Etterle v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1980 · confidence medium
The Supreme Court held in High v. State, 233 Ga. 153, 154 ( 210 SE2d 673 ) that in proving a voluntary confession at the Jackson-Denno hearing, “the state [is] required ... to show voluntariness only by a preponderance of the evidence.” In the case before us, the investigating officer testified that the appellants were fully advised of their Miranda rights and that the confessions were made without the slightest threat or promise of benefit.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Howard v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1980 · confidence medium
From conflicting evidence the trial court found the statements were properly obtained. " 'Factual and credibility determinations of this sort made by a trial judge after a suppression hearing must be accepted by appellate courts unless such determinations are clearly erroneous.’ ” High v. State, 233 Ga. 153, 154 ( 210 SE2d 673 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brooks v. State
Ga. · 1979 · confidence medium
When an appellant objects to the admission into evidence of his confession, the state must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, Lego v. Twomey, 404 U. S. 477, 489 (1972); United States v. Watson, 469 F2d 362, 364 (5th Cir. 1972); High v. State, 233 Ga. 153, 154 ( 210 SE2d 673 ) (1974), that the confession was voluntary, and, if the confession is the product of a custodial interrogation by officers of the government, that the confession was preceded by the appellant’s knowing and voluntary waiver of his Miranda rights.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Daniel v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1979 · confidence medium
It is alleged that the defendant’s confession was "induced by a hope of benefit.” The evidentiary basis for the "hope of benefit” is the claim of two statements by the *801 interrogating officer that "if he confessed he would feel a lot better” and that "he could get a 'zip-six’ sentence.” The latter statement was interpreted by the defendant that he would receive first offender treatment, a pardon, and "could return as a citizen.” The officer denied that he made any such statement regarding a "zip-six” sentence. " 'Factual and credibility determinations of this sort made by a …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hill v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1979 · confidence medium
"While legality, duration, and conditions of detention are of course relevant for consideration and determination of whether a confession is voluntary, nothing here appears to require a determination as a matter of law [an appellate court being required to accept factual and credibility determinations made by a trial judge unless clearly erroneous (High v. State, 233 Ga. 153, 154 ( 210 SE2d 673 ))] that by reason of illegal detention, length of detention, and the conditions here shown, the confession as a matter of law was coerced and involuntary, and therefore inadmissible in evidence.” Wil…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Pless v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1977 · confidence medium
High v. State, 233 Ga. 153, 154 ( 210 SE2d 673 ).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Rogers v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1977 · confidence medium
High v. State, 233 Ga. 153, 154 ( 210 SE2d 673 ) (1974); Lawrence v. State, 235 Ga. 216 ( 219 SE2d 101 ) (1975).”Person v. State, 235 Ga. 814 (2) ( 221 SE2d 587 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Senior v. State
Ga. · 1976 · confidence medium
Under decisions exemplified by Allen v. State, 231 Ga. 17 ( 200 SE2d 106 ) (1973); House v. State, 232 Ga. 140 ( 205 SE2d 217 ) (1974); High v. State, 233 Ga. 153, 154 ( 210 SE2d 673 ) (1974); and Pierce v. State, 235 Ga. 237, 239 ( 219 SE2d 158 ) (1975), the trial court did not err, considering the totality of the circumstances, in permitting the introduction of the appellant’s confession into evidence.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Goodwin v. State (2×)
Ga. · 1976 · confidence medium
Lego v. Twomey, 404 U. S. 477 (92 SC 619, 30 LE2d 618) (1972); High v. State, 233 Ga. 153, 154 ( 210 SE2d 673 ) (1974); Johnson v. State, 233 Ga. 58 ( 209 SE2d 629 ) (1974).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ellis v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1976 · confidence medium
High v. State, 233 Ga. 153, 154 ( 210 SE2d 673 ).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Person v. State
Ga. · 1976 · confidence medium
High v. State, 233 Ga. 153, 154 ( 210 SE2d 673 ) (1974); Lawrence v. *816 State, 235 Ga. 216 ( 219 SE2d 101 ) (1975).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ray v. State
Ga. · 1975 · confidence medium
High v. State, 233 Ga. 153, 154 ( 210 SE2d 673 ) (1974). 3.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Pierce v. State
Ga. · 1975 · confidence medium
We must accept those factual determinations by the trial court unless those findings are shown to be clearly erroneous (High v. State, 233 Ga. 153, 154 ( 210 SE2d 673 )), and they are not so shown.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Lawrence v. State
Ga. · 1975 · confidence medium
We must accept those factual determinations by the trial court unless those findings are shown to be clearly erroneous (High v. State, 233 Ga. 153, 154 ( 210 SE2d 673 )), and they are not so shown.
discussed Cited "see" W. G. C. v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See High v. State, 233 Ga. 153, 154 ( 210 SE2d 673 ).
discussed Cited "see" W. G. C. v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See High v. State, 233 Ga. 153, 154 ( 210 SE2d 673 ).
discussed Cited "see" Deering v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See High v. State, 233 Ga. 153 (1) ( 210 SE2d 673 ).
discussed Cited "see" Freeman v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See, High v. State, 233 Ga. 153 ( 210 SE2d 673 ); Woodruff v. State, 233 Ga. 840, 844 ( 213 SE2d 689 ); Jones v. State, 243 Ga. 820, 826 ( 256 SE2d 907 ).
discussed Cited "see" Pressel v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See High v. State, 233 Ga. 153, 154 ( 210 SE2d 673 ); Woodruff v. State, 233 Ga. 840, 844 ( 213 SE2d 689 ); Jones v. State, 243 Ga. 820, 826 ( 256 SE2d 907 ).
discussed Cited "see" Davis v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See High v. State, 233 Ga. 153 ( 210 SE2d 673 ) (1974); Ingram v. State, 137 Ga. App. 412 ( 224 SE2d 527 ) (1976). 2.
discussed Cited "see" Emmett v. State (2×)
Ga. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
See High v. State, 233 Ga. 153 ( 210 SE2d 673 ) (1974).
discussed Cited "see" Gainer v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See High v. State, 233 Ga. 153 ( 210 SE2d 673 ); Nunnally v. State, 235 Ga. 693 (12) ( 221 SE2d 547 ).” Id. p. 95.
discussed Cited "see" Collins v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1977 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally High v. State, 233 Ga. 153 (1) ( 210 SE2d 673 ) (1974).
discussed Cited "see" Brackins v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
See High v. State, 233 Ga. 153 ( 210 SE2d 673 ); Nunnally v. State, 235 Ga. 693 (12) ( 221 SE2d 547 ).
discussed Cited "see" Casteel v. State (2×)
Ga. · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
See Johnson v. State, 233 Ga. 58 ( 209 SE2d 629 ) (1974), and High v. State, 233 Ga. 153 ( 210 SE2d 673 ) (1974).
discussed Cited "see" Gray v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See High v. State, 233 Ga. 153 ( 210 SE2d 673 ). 2.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Brown v. State (2×)
Ga. · 1976 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare High v. State, 233 Ga. 153 ( 210 SE2d 673 ) (1974). 2.
High
v.
the State
29143.
Supreme Court of Georgia.
Oct 25, 1974.
210 S.E.2d 673
John Thomas Chason, for appellant., Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, JoelM. Feldman, Richard E. Hicks, Assistant District Attorneys, Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, B. Dean Grindle, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Jordan.
Cited by 100 opinions  |  Published
Jordan, Justice.

Ralph High, appellant here, was tried and found guilty of murder by a jury in the Fulton County Superior Court and sentenced to life imprisonment. After a motion for new trial was overruled he appealed his conviction to this court. Held:

1. Appellant’s main contention on appeal concerns the voluntariness of a confession given by him some ten hours after his arrest. Appellant contends that he is a drug addict and that the only reason he made and signed the confession was to secure treatment at the hospital for withdrawal symptoms brought about by forced deprivation of heroin as a result of his incarceration.

A Jackson-Denno hearing was conducted to determine whether the defendant’s confession was voluntary. After hearing evidence, the trial judge came to the conclusion that the defendant’s confession was voluntary and admitted it into evidence. The defendant complains that "The trial court erred in allowing the confession to be introduced and admitted into evidence because the state did not meet the burden of proving such confession was made without the promise of reward. . .”

[*154] Before making any determination as to the merit of appellant’s contention we must determine what standard of proof the state must meet in proving that the confession was voluntary. The United States Supreme Court in Lego v. Twomey, 404 U. S. 477 (92 SC 619, 30 LE2d 618) (1972) held that the state was required by the Constitution to show voluntariness only by a preponderance of the evidence. The' appellant argues that justice would be better served if a beyond a reasonable doubt standard was adopted in this state. However, we feel as did the United States Supreme Court in Lego (p. 489) that . . it is very doubtful that escalating the prosecution’s burden of proof in Fourth and Fifth Amendment suppression hearings would be sufficiently productive in this respect to outweigh the public interest in placing probative evidence before juries for the purpose of arriving at truthful decisions about guilt or innocence.” We agree with this view and adopt the standard as set out in Lego.

We now review the evidence presented at the Jackson-Denno hearing in the case sub judice in view of this established standard. The defendant, Ralph High, contends that he was suffering from withdrawal symptoms and signed the confession only on a promise that he would receive immediate medical attention. On the other hand, the prosecution introduced witnesses present while the confession was taken who testified that the defendant was merely nervous and upset. We stated in Johnson v. State, 233 Ga. 58, that "Factual and credibility determinations of this sort made by a trial judge after a suppression hearing must be accepted by appellate courts unless such determinations are clearly erroneous,” citing Lego v. Twomey, supra, and United States v. Watson, 469 F2d 362 (5th Cir. 1972). After a careful review of the evidence submitted to the trial judge here, we feel that his determination was not clearly erroneous, and that the confession was properly admitted into evidence.

2. Having decided that the confession was properly admitted into evidence in this case, appellant’s enumerations on the general grounds are without merit.

3. The appellant contends that the trial court erred[*155] in excluding certain medical records that he wished to have in evidence to show the time and date the appellant was admitted into the hospital. Other testimony by both the state’s witnesses and the appellant established the time and date of admittal and the information derived from the hospital reports would only have been cumulative. There was no error in excluding these reports.

Argued September 13, 1974 — Decided October 25, 1974 Rehearing denied November 5, 1974. John Thomas Chason, for appellant. Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, JoelM. Feldman, Richard E. Hicks, Assistant District Attorneys, Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, B. Dean Grindle, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

4. The appellant contends that several statements made by the prosecuting attorney and the trial judge were inflammatory and unduly prejudiced the jurors. We have carefully reviewed these statements and find no reversible error.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.