Parker v. State

• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: DEEN; BELL, C.J., and PANNELL
• Citation: Parker v. State, 183 S.E.2d 612, 124 Ga.App. 317 (Ga. App. 1971)
• Decision Date: 08 July 1971
• Docket Number: No. 1,No. 46278,46278,1
• Parties: R. B. PARKER v. The STATE

Page 612

183 S.E.2d 612

124 Ga.App. 317

R. B. PARKER v. The STATE.

No. 46278.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 1.

July 8, 1971.

Rehearing Denied July 26, 1971.

H. T. Greenholtz, Jr., Albany, for appellant.

Robert W. Reynolds, Dist. Atty., Albany, for appellee.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

DEEN, Judge.

1. Code Ann. § 79A-9916 (Ga.L.1970, pp. 462, 463) amends 'Code Chapter 79A-9' which was originally enacted by Ga.L.1967, pp. 298, 343 et seq. and entitled the Georgia Drug Abuse Control Act. Chapter 8 of the same law (Ga.L.1967, pp. 296, 328 et seq.) was entitled the 'Uniform Narcotic Drug Act.' Possession of Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD), which is made a felony under Code Ann. § 79A-9916 is, accordingly, technically a violation of Chapter 9 (Drug Abuse Control Act) rather then Chapter 8 (Uniform Narcotic Drug Act) and to this extent the indictment charging the defendant with a violation of the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act in that he possessed LSD on a given date is inaccurate. To this extent also it varies from the affidavit supporting the arrest warrant. This does not, however, vitiate the indictment, where from the facts stated it is clear that the charge is illegal possession of LSD. Allen v. State, 120 Ga.App. 533, 534, 171 S.E.2d 380: 'The name of the offense is not material because the indictment need not name the crime by a specific name.' The demurrer to the indictment and motion in arrest of judgment were properly overruled.

2. The motion to suppress is based on various alleged inaccuracies in the search warrant and its supporting affidavit. Since neither is in evidence, these grounds present nothing for decision by this court. From the testimony offered on the motion, it appears that the point being made is that the facts stated in the affidavit supporting the search warrant contained statements not authorized by the officer's actutal sources of information at the time the affidavit was made. Such fact, however, unless known to the issuing magistrate, does not render the warrant void although it may expose the affiant to a charge of false swearing. The issue is whether the facts stated in the warrant and to be taken as true by the magistrate constitute a sufficient showing of probable cause. Wood v. State, 118 Ga.App. 477, 164 S.E.2d 233.

3. The defendant's person and automobile were searched under authority of a warrant, and 91 tablets of LSD found in his pocket and introduced on the trial of the case. The evidence...