Cross v. State
| Decision Date | 17 March 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 29528,29528 |
| Parties | William Howard CROSS v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Hendon, Egerton, Harrison & Glean, E. t. Hendon, Jr., Decatur, for appellant.
Richard Bell, Dist. Atty., Alton G. Hartley, Asst. Dist. Atty., Decatur, for appellee.
Arthur K. Bolton, Atty., Gen., and Julius C. Daugherty, Jr., Atlanta, amicus curiae.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
William Howard Cross appeals from his conviction of bribery and the sentence thereon, and from the denial of his motion for new trial.
Jurisdiction in this court is alleged because of an attack on the constitutionality of Ga.L.1968, pp. 1249, 1333 (Code Ann. § 26-3006).
The appellant filed a motion to suppress tape recordings of his telephone conversation with police officers, and testimony related thereto, contending that the evidence was illegally obtained in violation of Ga.L.1968, pp. 1249, 1327 (Code Ann. § 26-3001). It is alleged that the state relies on Ga.L.1968, pp. 1249, 1333 (Code Ann. § 26-3006), which provides exceptions to the prohibitions of Code Ann. § 26-3001. It is asserted that Code Ann. § 26-3006 violates the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution (Dode § 1-804) and Art. I, Sec. I, Par. XVI of the Constitution of the State of Georgia (Code Ann. § 2-116).
The trial judge held that a previous motion to suppress the identical evidence had been overruled, tha this ruling had been sustained by the Court of Appeals, and that the ruling of the Court of Appeals was controlling on the trial court. The motion to suppress was dismissed. The first of the appellant's 58 enumerated errors complains of this ruling.
The decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the denial of the previous motion to suppress evidence is Cross v. State, 128 Ga.App. 837, 198 S.E.2d 338. In the majority opinion of the Court of Appeals it was held that the prohibitions of Code Ann. § 26-3001 do not apply to one who is a party to a recorded conversation. It was further held that the exceptions of Code Ann. § 26-3006 are also applicable to the evidence which the appellant sought to suppress.
The principle that a ruling by this court or the Court of Appeals is binding in all subsequent proceedings in that case in the lower court applies in criminal cases as well as in civil cases. Bryant v. State, 197 Ga. 641, 645, 30 S.E.2d 259.
An appellant may not avoid a judgment of the Court of Appeals which affirms the denial of his motion to suppress evidence, by filing another motion to suppress the same evidence, when the case is returned to the trial court, attacking the constitutionality of a portion of the law under which the Court of Appeals' decision is rendered, where there has been no subsequent change in the law. Compare: Lowe v. City of Atlanta, 194 Ga. 317, 21 S.E.2d 171; Mays v. Deraney, 207 Ga. 617(1), 63 S.E.2d 380; Williams v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cross v. State
...were decided adversely to the appellant on his prior appeal. Cross v. State, 128 Ga.App. 837, 198 S.E.2d 338. See also Cross v. State, 233 Ga. 960, 214 S.E.2d 374 transferring the present appeal to this court from the Supreme Court. The constitutional attack upon Code § 26-3006 was disposed......
-
Cross v. State of Ga., 76-4379
...Appeals rejected this argument. Cross v. Georgia, 128 Ga.App. 837, 198 S.E.2d 338. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed. Cross v. Georgia, 233 Ga. 960, 214 S.E.2d 374. His appeal from the denial of an extraordinary motion for a new trial was consolidated in the Georgia Court of Appeals wit......
-
Johnson v. State, A91A1698
...v. Simms, 79 Ga. 253, 257(2), 4 S.E. 909 (1887); Cross v. State, 136 Ga.App. 400, 405(6), 221 S.E.2d 615 (1975), cert. denied 233 Ga. 960, 214 S.E.2d 374 (1975); OCGA § This, of course, would weaken the inference that Bryant was absent for a legitimate reason and strengthen the inference th......
-
Rhyne v. State
...when the case is returned to the trial court, ... where there has been no subsequent change in the law. [Cits.] Cross v. State, 233 Ga. 960, 961, 214 S.E.2d 374 (1975). Judgment All the Justices concur. ...