Gilmore v. State
| Decision Date | 05 December 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 43146,No. 2,43146,2 |
| Citation | 159 S.E.2d 474,117 Ga.App. 67 |
| Parties | Ernestine GILMORE v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Sullivan & Herndon, John J. Sullivan, Savannah, for appellant.
Andrew J. Ryan, Jr., Sol., Tom A. Edenfield, Savannah, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
1. Defendant was convicted under an accusation charging her with maintaining and carrying on a scheme, known as Bolita, for the hazarding of money. Code § 26-6502. On the trial defendant contended that tally sheets found in her possession were records of numerous chances purchased by her and not records made in the operation of the game. The first ground enumerated on this appeal contends that the court erred in failing to instruct the jury 'that if the jury should find that she (defendant) was a purchaser (rather than an operator of the game) * * * she would not be guilty' of the charge against her. Defendant's contention that she was merely a purchaser of chances was embraced in the general issue and was therefore covered in the general instructions given. See Thomas v. State, 126 Ga. 90(2), 54 S.E. 813; Findley v. State, 59 Ga.App. 390, 1 S.E.2d 37. If defendant desired a specific charge on this contention, she should have submitted an appropriate written request pursuant to Section 17(b) of the Appellate Practice Act (Ga.L.1965, pp. 18, 31 as amended by Ga.L.1966, pp. 493, 498; Code Ann. § 70-207(b)).
2. The holding of Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081, that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Federal Constitution is inadmissible in state courts, is only an exclusionary rule and does not affect the competence of evidence admitted without timely challenge. Thus the mere contention that the State's evidence was obtained as a result of an unlawful search and seizure is not a sufficient ground for a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal in a criminal case. Moreover, Section 13 of an Act of 1966 (Ga.L.1966, pp. 567, 571; Code Ann. § 27-313) established a procedure for the suppression of evidence obtained by unlawful search and seizure and provided that a motion to suppress 'shall be in writing and state facts showing wherein the search and seizure were unlawful.' Defendant's failure to interpose a timely motion to suppress pursuant to the Act amounted to a waiver of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reid v. State, 48461
...warrant itself, or in the absence of a warrant authorizing the search, where no timely motion to suppress is filed. Gilmore v. State, 117 Ga.App. 67(2), 159 S.E.2d 474; Brannen v. State, 117 Ga.App. 69, 159 S.E.2d 476, supra; Lane v. State, 118 Ga.App. 688(2), 165 S.E.2d 474; West v. State,......
-
Holcomb v. Kirby, s. 43112
...391; Foskey v. State, 116 Ga.App. 334(2), 157 S.E.2d 314; Carroll v. Morrison, 116 Ga.App. 575(4), 158 S.E.2d 480; Gilmore v. State, 117 Ga.App. 67(1), 159 S.E.2d 474. As we understand the dissent, it is not found, as contended, that the two subsections of this statute are conflicting. Rath......
-
Norman v. State
...and submitted in accordance with the provisions of § 17(b) of the Appellate Practice Act (Code Ann. § 70-207(b)). Gilmore v. State, 117 Ga.App. 67(1), 159 S.E.2d 474. An oral request that the court charge an excerpt from a decision of the appellate court does not meet this Moreover, if the ......
-
Wilson v. Hopper, 30048
...as being a waiver under the rulings of the Lane, Gilmore and Bissel (Lane v. State, 118 Ga.App. 688, 165 S.E.2d 474; Gilmore v. State, 117 Ga.App. 67, 159 S.E.2d 474; Bissel v. State, 126 Ga.App. 61, 189 S.E.2d 701) cases or a matter for the court's discretion, the trial judge did not err i......