Strickman v. State
| Decision Date | 06 September 1984 |
| Docket Number | 41180,Nos. 41179,s. 41179 |
| Citation | 253 Ga. 287,319 S.E.2d 864 |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
| Parties | STRICKMAN v. The STATE. STRICKMAN. |
Ralph T. Bowden, Jr., Sol., J. Phillip Hancock, Asst. Sol., Decatur, for the State in No. 41179.
Stephen T. Maples, Decatur, for Andrew Perry Strickman in both cases.
Ralph T. Bowden, Jr., Sol., F. Gentry Shelnutt, Jr., Chief Asst. Sol., Decatur, for the State in No. 41180.
We received from the Court of Appeals the following certified question:
"Although otherwise considered an interlocutory ruling, in a criminal case where the defendant's pre-trial motion in limine to suppress evidence is granted based upon allegations not involving illegal search and seizure, is the grant of such motion in limine subject to direct appeal by the state under OCGA § 5-7-1(4)?"
Strickman's pre-trial motion in limine was granted, excluding evidence of the results of a breath test claimed to have been made in violation of OCGA § 40-6-392 and the regulations of the Department of Public Safety. The state directly appealed, and Strickman moved to dismiss.
OCGA § 5-7-1(4) provides: "An appeal may be taken by and on behalf of the State of Georgia from the superior courts and such other courts from which a direct appeal is authorized to the Court of Appeals of Georgia and the Supreme Court of Georgia in criminal cases in the following instances:
"(4) From 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 the jury."
Strickman contends that this statute restricts the state's right to appeal to rulings upon pleadings which are denominated "motion to suppress," and which rulings suppress evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. He relies upon the language of OCGA § 17-5-30, contending that only suppressions under the express terms of that statute, as thus interpreted, are subject to direct appeal.
We do not agree with so restrictive a view of OCGA § 5-7-1(4). The statute itself contains no such limitations, and the general purpose of appeal--which is to assure as much as possible that justice be done--is inconsistent with so limited an interpretation.
A motion in limine can be such as to seek to suppress evidence illegally obtained under the Fourth Amendment--or under any other provision of law. Assuredly, the right of appeal provided to the state in the statute should not be frustrated by the manner in which the pleader names his motion. "We have long ago departed that realm of law where runes and sigils supplant reason and substance." Tuggle v. Tuggle, 251 Ga. 845, 310 S.E.2d 224 (1984). Additionally, evidence "illegally seized" is seized illegally,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State v. Smith.
...motions made and ruled upon prior to the impaneling of a jury or the defendant being put in jeopardy....” Addressing this statute 8 in Strickman v. State, the Supreme Court of Georgia deemed “the enactment of the appeal statute to be remedial in nature, so that an error committed by a trial......
-
State v. Rosenbaum, S18A1090
...exclude ‘evidence on the ground that it was obtained in violation of law.’ " Id. at 467, 782 S.E.2d 665, quoting Strickman v. State, 253 Ga. 287, 288, 319 S.E.2d 864 (1984). In contrast, subsection (a) (5) permits appeals "from orders excluding evidence other than the evidence with which OC......
-
State v. Vansant
...illegally seized in the case of motions made and ruled upon prior to the impaneling of a jury. OCGA § 5-7-1(4); State v. Strickman, 253 Ga. 287, 288, 319 S.E.2d 864 (1984). In the civil context, it is expressly provided that the filing of a notice of appeal of an interlocutory order acts as......
-
State v. Andrade
...See State v. Watson, 143 Ga.App. 785, 786 –787(2), 240 S.E.2d 194 (1977), overruled in part on other grounds, Strickman v. State, 253 Ga. 287, 288, 319 S.E.2d 864 (1984). Since then, this Court and the Court of Appeals both have looked repeatedly to this statutory authorization as a proper ......
-
Criminal Law - Laura D. Hogue and Franklin J. Hogue
...5-7-1(a)(4) (1995 & Supp. 2007). 236. City of Atlanta v. McCary, 245 Ga. 582, 582, 266 S.E.2d 193, 193 (1980). 237. Strickman v. State, 253 Ga. 287, 288, 319 S.E.2d 864, 865 (1984). 238. Crowell v. State, 234 Ga. 313, 313, 215 S.E.2d 685, 685 (1975). 239. 281 Ga. 152, 635 S.E.2d 716 (2006).......