Green v. State
| Decision Date | 23 September 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 40930,40930,2 |
| Parties | Willie Lee GREEN v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
B. Clarence Mayfield, Savannah, for offered amounted to a waiver of any objection which he might have had.
B. Clarence Mayfield, Savannah, for plaintiff in error.
Andrew J. Ryan, Jr., Sol., Sylvan A. Garfunkel, Asst. Sol., Savannah, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
1. The defendant was convicted of maintaining a lottery on the uncontroverted testimony of a police officer that he had discovered her in possession of a sealed envelope containing money and a bolita talley sheet and tickets, and had obtained an admission from her that 'they were hers and that it was her game.' The circumstances under which the evidence was obtained would, over objection duly made, have raised an issue of fact as to whether the evidence should have been rejected as obtained by illegal search and seizure. Plaintiff in error, apparently relying on Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081, moved to suppress the evidence prior to arraignment, and renewed the motion prior to trial, but did not object to the evidence at the time it was offered.
In Jackson v. State, 108 Ga.App. 529, 133 S.E.2d 436, it was held: '[W]here the defendant prior to trial made a motion to suppress certain evidence, which motion was overruled, and where thereafter on the trial of the case the evidence was admitted without any objection to its admission being made at that time, assuming, but not deciding that a motion to suppress was a proper remedy to have the evidence excluded, the failure of the defendant to object to the evidence at the time it was actually offered, amounted to a waiver of any objection which he might have had thereto.' The motion to suppress in Federal courts is presently founded on the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 40(b) (3), 18 U.S.C.A. No comparable rule of procedure appears in Georgia law, although it is a common and salutary function of pretrial procedures to consider just the sort of evidentiary question which a motion to suppress might raise under these circumstances. Where such procedure is not available or is not used, the original ruling on the admissibility of evidence obtained prior to trial cannot be relied upon as a final adjudication on which error may be assigned thereafter.
2. The general grounds of the motion for a new trial are without merit.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reid v. State, 48461
...to suppress was unknown in the law of this state, and there is now no authority for the motion save under the statute. Green v. State, 110 Ga.App. 346, 138 S.E.2d 589; Brannen v. State, 117 Ga.App. 69, 159 S.E.2d 476. 'Assuming, without deciding, that the overruling of the motion to suppres......
-
Lofton v. State, 45695
...175 S.E.2d 545; Thompson v. State, 4 Ga.App. 649, 652, 62 S.E. 99; Jackson v. State, 108 Ga.App. 529, 133 S.E.2d 436; Green v. State, 110 Ga.App. 364, 138 S.E.2d 589; Richardson v. State, 113 Ga.App. 163, 147 S.E.2d 653; Peters v. State, 114 Ga.App. 595, 152 S.E.2d 647; Tanner v. State, 114......
-
Brannen v. State, 43105
...law comparable to the motion to suppress provided by Rule 41(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C. Green v. State, 110 Ga.App. 346(1), 138 S.E.2d 589. See Tanner v. State, 114 Ga.App. 35, 36(1), 150 S.E.2d 189. Thus it was necessary to take advantage of the exclusionary r......
-
Tanner v. State
...his motion to suppress certain evidence. Under the decisions in Jackson v. State, 108 Ga.App. 529, 133 S.E.2d 436; and Green v. State, 110 Ga.App. 346, 138 S.E.2d 589, such action by the trial court was not 2. Enumerations of error numbered 2, 3 and 5 all deal with the admission of evidence......