Driver v. State

Frederick Duane Driver shot and killed Randy Diamond outside Diamond's home in Rome after an earlier argument over money. A Floyd County jury convicted Driver of felony murder and a firearm charge, and the trial judge sentenced him to life plus five years. On appeal, Driver argued only that the trial court should have kept out an incriminating statement he made to a police investigator while in custody, claiming the investigator kept questioning him after he asked for a lawyer. The recorded interview showed Driver invoked his right to counsel, but then, as the investigator was leaving the room, Driver himself asked questions about the evidence against him and volunteered that he shot Diamond after being punched. The Supreme Court of Georgia held that because Driver reinitiated the conversation and voluntarily gave up his right to have a lawyer present, the statement was properly admitted, and it affirmed his conviction.

A suspect's right to counsel under Miranda and Edwards is not violated when, after invoking that right, the suspect himself reinitiates discussion of the investigation and voluntarily makes an admission; the officer's response to the suspect's own questions is not interrogation, so the statement is admissible.

The ruling clarifies for Georgia police and prosecutors when a suspect who has asked for a lawyer can still have later statements used against him: only if the suspect, not the officer, restarts substantive discussion of the case. It guides how interrogations and confessions are handled and reviewed statewide.

Affirmed

1. The court applied the rule from Edwards v. Arizona that once a suspect asks for a lawyer during custodial questioning, police must stop questioning him unless he himself reinitiates conversation or his lawyer is present.
2. It explained that routine background questions like name, address, and employment are 'booking' questions, not interrogation, so asking them before or after Miranda warnings does not violate a suspect's rights.
3. The court found the investigator's comments encouraging Driver to share his side of the story, made before Driver invoked his right to counsel, were not coercive and did not amount to improper pressure.
4. After Driver invoked his right to counsel, the investigator stopped discussing the case, but the recording showed Driver himself later asked the investigator questions about the evidence, which the court treated as Driver reinitiating the discussion.
5. Because Driver's own questions showed a desire to discuss the investigation, the investigator's answers were not interrogation, and Driver's subsequent admission that he shot Diamond was volunteered rather than the product of police questioning.
6. Applying the totality-of-the-circumstances test, the court concluded Driver voluntarily waived his right to counsel when he restarted the conversation, so the trial court correctly refused to suppress his admission.

• felony murder conviction
• right to counsel
• Miranda rights
• police interrogation
• Floyd County