Bartlett v. State, s. 64817
| Decision Date | 04 January 1983 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 64817,64818 and 64819,s. 64817 |
| Citation | 299 S.E.2d 68,165 Ga.App. 18 |
| Parties | BARTLETT v. The STATE. (Three Cases) |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
James P. Brown, Jr., A.J. Welch, Jr., McDonough, for appellant.
E. Bryon Smith, Dist. Atty., Tommy K. Floyd, Asst. Dist. Atty., Barnesville, for appellee.
Clarence Ellis Bartlett appeals his conviction on three counts of violating the Georgia Controlled Substances Act. Held.
1. Appellant's first two enumerations of error challenge the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress certain evidence seized as the result of a search warrant. The transcript of the hearing on this motion discloses that the subject warrant and accompanying affidavit were marked as an exhibit by the state but were never tendered into evidence. Several months later the clerk of the court supplemented the record in this case by forwarding to this court a copy of the warrant and affidavit, noting that the same had been inadvertently omitted. The warrant indicates on its face that it had been filed in open court on the day of the suppression hearing. The transcript of that hearing indicates that the written affidavit was the only evidence presented to the magistrate in support of issuing the warrant. Yet, as noted earlier, neither the warrant nor the accompanying affidavit were tendered as evidence at the hearing. Further, the testimony proffered by the state did not disclose the substance of the affidavit.
"It is elementary that documents upon which a party rests his case must be offered into evidence." Stanley v. Stanley, 138 Ga.App. 560, 561, 226 S.E.2d 800 (1976). "The burden of proof is upon the state to show what facts constituting probable cause existed and were presented to the magistrate before the warrant was issued." Bland v. State, 141 Ga.App. 858, 234 S.E.2d 692 (1977). For whatever reason, the warrant and accompanying affidavit were not tendered into evidence by the state. The only evidence presented in support of the state's position was the testimony at the hearing. This testimony did not contain sufficient facts to sustain the state's burden of proof. Thus, the trial court erred in denying appellant's motion to suppress. Reddish v. State, 161 Ga.App. 170, 288 S.E.2d 266 (1982); Liskey v. State, 156 Ga.App. 45(1), 274 S.E.2d 89 (1980); Bland v. State, supra. "Had the search warrant [and] the affidavit been included in the record, the result might have been different." Reddish v. State, supra, 161 Ga.App. at 171, 288 S.E.2d 266.
2. The record discloses that the state failed to provide appellant with a copy of a written scientific report which had been prepared on behalf of the state by the State Crime Laboratory. A timely and proper demand for such had been made pursuant to Code Ann. § 27-1303 (now OCGA § 17-7-211). Cf. State v. Meminger, 249 Ga. 561(1), 292 S.E.2d 681 (1982). Appellant's third...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Watts v. State
...Davis v. State, supra at 213, 465 S.E.2d 438. See also State v. Slaughter, supra at 439, 315 S.E.2d 865; Bartlett v. State, 165 Ga.App. 18, 19(1), 299 S.E.2d 68 (1983); Liskey v. State, 156 Ga.App. 45, 46(1), 274 S.E.2d 89 (1980). Even if the challenge to the warrant is not based upon one o......
-
Slade v. State
...but did not offer them into evidence. A party must offer into evidence those documents upon which he relies. Bartlett v. State, 165 Ga.App. 18, 19(1), 299 S.E.2d 68 (1983). This court cannot order the trial court to add to the record evidence which neither party has ever proffered. See Harp......
-
Watts v. State, A00A1084.
...to support the issuance of a warrant. Compare Liskey v. State, 156 Ga. App. 45-46(1), 274 S.E.2d 89 (1980); Bartlett v. State, 165 Ga.App. 18-19(1), 299 S.E.2d 68 (1983). ...
-
Sosebee v. The State
...and supporting affidavit at the motion hearing. See Watts v. State, 274 Ga. 373, 376(2), 552 S.E.2d 823 (2001); Bartlett v. State, 165 Ga.App. 18, 18-19(1), 299 S.E.2d 68 (1983). In this case, the state failed to produce the warrant and supporting affidavit. Nonetheless, the state argues th......