Cooper v. State
| Decision Date | 24 June 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,No. 43678,43678,3 |
| Citation | 118 Ga.App. 57,162 S.E.2d 753 |
| Parties | D. F. COOPER v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Greer, Sartain & Carey, Jack M. Carey, Gainesville, for appellant.
Jeff C. Wayne, Solicitor Gen., Darrell W. MacIntyre, Gainesville, for appellee. Syllabus Opinion by the Court
On March 18, 1968, the defendant pleaded nolo contendere on two charges of illegal possession of intoxicating liquor. On March 23, 1968, he was fined and placed on probation. The next day a justice of the peace issued a warrant to search the defendant's residence for liquor and beer. The supporting affidavit recites as a basis for the warrant 'information from an informer who has proven true and reliable in the past that liquor and beer is being stored and sold at above premises and in two different stoves on the inside and the outside, also in the chimney, and across the road from the premises across Hy. 211.' The warrant shows a finding of probable cause based on the affidavit and 'after taking testimony under oath, and receiving other evidence in conformity with the law.' The search revealed 8 cases and 22 cans of beer, 5 pints of whiskey, 1 fifth of vodka, and 2 pints of wine, all taxpaid. The following day, the trial court conducted a hearing, after notice, refused to suppress evidence of the warrant and the results of the search, and revoked probation. The defendant appeals from the order dated March 25, 1968, revoking probation, contending that the court erred in refusing to suppress the warrant and evidence obtained thereby, and that the order is based on illegally obtained evidence and is unsupported by admissible evidence. Held:
Assuming, without deciding, that insufficient facts were submitted to the magistrate to support a determination of probable cause for issuing the search warrant, thereby making the evidence obtained as a result thereof inadmissible, there was other evidence before the court sufficient to authorize the revocation.
At a revocation hearing after due notice the trial judge is not bound by the same rules of evidence as a jury in passing upon the guilt or innocence of the accused in the first instance, and it is not necessary that the evidence support the finding beyond a reasonable doubt or even by a preponderance of the evidence. The trial judge is the trier of the facts and has a very wide discretion. Atkinson v. State, 82 Ga.App. 414, 61 S.E.2d 212; Allen v. State, 78 Ga.App....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Burkholder
...other courts that have already adopted this interpretation. State v. McMilliam (1956), 243 N.C. 775, 92 S.E.2d 205; Cooper v. State (1968), 118 Ga.App. 57, 162 S.E.2d 753; Amiss v. State (1975), 135 Ga.App. 784, 219 S.E.2d 28; Giles v. State (1979), 149 Ga.App. 263, 254 S.E.2d 154; Adams v.......
-
State v. Lombardo
...Giles v. State, 149 Ga.App. 263, 254 S.E.2d 154 (1979); Amiss v. State, 135 Ga.App. 784, 219 S.E.2d 28 (1975); Cooper v. State, 118 Ga.App. 57, 162 S.E.2d 753 (1968). Oklahoma--Michaud v. State, 505 P.2d 1399 (Okl.Cr.App.1973). Texas--Moore v. State, 562 S.W.2d 484 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Rushin......
-
Hunter v. State
...in determining the sufficiency of evidence to authorize revocation. Raines v. State, 130 Ga.App. 1, 202 S.E.2d 253; Cooper v. State, 118 Ga.App. 57, 162 S.E.2d 753. This court will not interfere in the trial court's decision unless there has been a manifest abuse of that discretion. Raines ......
-
Amiss v. State
...question on an appeal from a revocation of probation, implying that the exclusionary rule was applicable. See also Cooper v. State, 118 Ga.App. 57, 58, 162 S.E.2d 753; State v. Gansz (Fla.App.), 297 So.2d 614; Michaud v. State (Okl.Cr.), 505 P.2d We are aware of the rule that in a revocatio......