and, thus, whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress). 7 See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (86 SCt 1602, 16 LE2d 694) (1966). 8 Jackson v. Denno, 378 U. S. 368 (84 SCt 1774, 12 LE2d 908) (1964). 9 See generally Riley v. State, 237 Ga. 124, 128 (226 SE2d 922) (1976) (setting forth nine factors that trial courts must consider in deciding whether to exclude a juvenile’s confession because it was not made voluntarily). 10 Amador v. State, 310 Ga. App. 280, 282 (2) (713 SE2d 423) (2011) (footnote omitted). 11 Dailey v. State, 313 Ga. App. 809, 815-816 (1) (723 SE2d 43) (2012). 12 Thompson v. State, 313 Ga. App. 844, 846-847 (1) (723 SE2d 85) (2012) (punctuation and footnote omitted). 13 Id. at 847-848 (1) (punctuation and footnote omitted; emphasis in original) (<HOLDING>). 14 Hicks v. State, 255 Ga. 503, 504 (1) (340
holding that a reputation for sobriety from drugs and alcohol is pertinent to the charge of possession of drug paraphernalia because intent to use is an element of the offense holding extraneous evidence that defendant was using drugs admissible under rule 404b because evidence not offered to show that defendant was drug user and was using drugs at the time of the offense but to rebut the defense of consensual sex holding that a district court errs by admitting a twelveyearold drug conviction to prove intent in a subsequent drug prosecution holding that after producing drug paraphernalia admitting to owning same and admitting to recently buying and using drugs a reasonable person would certainly perceive himself to be in police custody holding magistrate could infer that evidence of drugs or paraphernalia would be located in experienced drug dealers home