Skipworth v. State
Decision Date | 26 January 1988 |
Docket Number | No. 75553,75553 |
Citation | 185 Ga.App. 636,365 S.E.2d 284 |
Parties | SKIPWORTH v. The STATE. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Harvey A. Monroe, Atlanta, for appellant.
Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Chris Jensen, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Defendant Earl W. Skipworth was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. Held:
1. In his first enumeration defendant argues that the affidavit upon which the warrant to search his apartment was issued was insufficient because it failed to specify the dates on which the confidential informant observed the events enumerated therein. In a related enumeration, defendant also argues that the information contained in the affidavit was insufficient to overcome the issue of staleness.
Borders v. State, 173 Ga.App. 110, 113, 325 S.E.2d 626 (1984).
In the present case, the affidavit, which was dated October 11, 1985, provided, in relevant part, as follows:
Based on the foregoing we are convinced that although the affidavit did not specify each and every date on which the informant observed the selling, storing and concealing cocaine, the information provided therein "certainly created 'a reasonable belief that the CONDITIONS described in the affidavit still prevailed at the time of the issuance of the warrant.' " Little v. State, 173 Ga.App. 512, 513, 326 S.E.2d 859 (1985). See also Landers v. State, 183 Ga.App. 691(2), 359 S.E.2d 748 (1987); Ayers v. State, 181 Ga.App. 244(5b), 351 S.E.2d 692 (1986); Cline v. State, 178 Ga.App. 470(1), 343 S.E.2d 506 (1986). Hence defendant's first two enumerations of error are without merit.
2. Defendant also contends that the search warrant was fatally defective because the presenting officer did not affirm under oath the contents of the supporting affidavit. Contrary to defendant's assertion, however, the testimony of Officer Britt is uncontradicted that the affidavit was presented under oath properly administered by the issuing judicial officer. Consequently, this enumeration is also without merit.
3. Lastly, defendant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to grant defendant's request for disclosure of the identity of the confidential informant who supplied the information contained in the affidavit.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ezzard v. State
...further inquiry by the trial court is required. Thornton v. State, 238 Ga. 160, 165(2), 231 S.E.2d 729 (1977); Skipworth v. State, 185 Ga.App. 636, 638(3), 365 S.E.2d 284 (1988). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ezzard's motion to reveal the identity of a confidential......
- Saylor v. State, 75455
-
Rush v. State
...the trial court did not err in refusing to require disclosure of the identity of the informant. [Cits.]" Skipworth v. State, 185 Ga.App. 636, 638, 365 S.E.2d 284 (1988). 5. Claiming that evidence the State planned to use against him was the fruit of an illegal search of his residence, appel......