State v. Lawrence, A93A0105
| Decision Date | 03 May 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. A93A0105,A93A0105 |
| Citation | 431 S.E.2d 409,208 Ga.App. 588 |
| Parties | The STATE v. LAWRENCE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
James E. Cornwell, Jr., Sol., for appellant.
Christopher W. Duncan, Toccoa, for appellee.
According to the reconstructed record of this bench trial, Virginia Lawrence was a passenger in a vehicle which was stopped by the Georgia State Patrol at a routine roadblock check for driver's licenses and insurance. Although the driver's insurance papers were in order and his valid license showed him to be of lawful age, the investigating officer smelled alcohol and tested the driver. The results were too low to charge the driver with any offense. Thereafter, the officer approached the vehicle and questioned Lawrence and another passenger seated therein. When the two girls denied that they had been drinking, the officer made one passenger take an alco-sensor test, which indicated the presence of alcohol. When the officer asked them if they still maintained that they had not been drinking, Ms. Lawrence admitted that she had been drinking earlier. In response to additional questioning, she told the officer that she was not yet 21, whereupon she was formally arrested and charged with possession of alcohol by a person under the age of 21, in violation of OCGA § 3-3-23(a)(2). Neither alcohol nor empty containers was discovered in the vehicle. After the investigating officer testified as to the incriminating statements Ms. Lawrence had made in response to his questioning, defense counsel made an oral motion to exclude from evidence her answers to these questions, on the ground that she had not been cautioned of her rights before such questioning. The trial court heard evidence and, having discredited the factual bases for the officer's stated suspicions, concluded that Miranda warnings were required before the officer could interrogate a passenger of a vehicle stopped at a routine roadblock, on a minimal suspicion that the passenger might be an underage person in possession of alcohol. Accordingly, the trial court granted the defense motion and sua sponte directed a verdict of acquittal. Ostensibly pursuant to OCGA § 5-7-1(4), the State appeals, enumerating as error the grant of the motion to suppress.
Although State v. McKenna, 199 Ga.App. 206, 207, 404 S.E.2d 278 (1991). Pursuant to OCGA § 5-7-1(4), "[a]n appeal may be taken by ... the State of Georgia ... in criminal cases ... [f]rom an order, decision, or judgment sustaining a motion to suppress evidence illegally seized in the case of motions made and ruled upon prior to the impaneling of a jury." (Emphasis supplied.) In the case of a bench trial, the statute permits appeals from the grant of a motion to suppres...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gooch v. State
...("beneficiary of a directed verdict of acquittal" not sentenced for offense of which he was acquitted). 25. See State v. Lawrence, 208 Ga.App. 588, 589, 431 S.E.2d 409 (1993) (even if directed verdict improvidently granted, the State cannot challenge it on appeal). 26. 237 Ga.App. 226, 514 ......
-
State v. Henderson
...the charge against Henderson prior to trial.10 Judgment reversed. SMITH, P.J., and PHIPPS, J., concur. 1. See State v. Lawrence, 208 Ga.App. 588, 589, 431 S.E.2d 409 (1993) ("[T]he government may not appeal a trial court's grant to a criminal defendant of a directed verdict of acquittal bas......
-
State v. Schuman
...of the evidence. Such a ruling is not ordinarily an appealable judgment within the purview of O.C.G.A. § 5-7-1. See State v. Lawrence, 208 Ga.App. 588, 431 S.E.2d 409. Judgment JOHNSON and BLACKBURN, JJ., concur. ...
-
State v. Shabazz
...BLACKBURN, P.J., and MILLER, J., concur. 1. State v. Williams, 246 Ga. 788, 788-789(1), 272 S.E.2d 725 (1980); State v. Lawrence, 208 Ga. App. 588, 589, 431 S.E.2d 409 (1993). 2. See OCGA §§ 40-6-21 (meaning of traffic signal indications); 40-6-23 (meaning of flashing red and yellow signals......