Williams v. State, 44402
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | HALL; JORDAN, P.J., and WHITMAN |
| Citation | Williams v. State, 167 S.E.2d 756, 119 Ga.App. 557 (Ga. App. 1969) |
| Decision Date | 17 April 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,No. 44402,44402,3 |
| Parties | Virgil WILLIAMS v. The STATE |
Daniel C. B. Levy, Atlanta, for appellant.
Hinson McAuliffe, Solicitor, Thomas Moran, Frank A. Bowers, Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
This is the first direct appeal from the Criminal Court of Fulton County pursuant to the amendment to the Georgia Constitution ratified November 1967 and the Act authorizing such appeals to the Court of Appeals of Georgia, effective January 1, 1969 (Ga.L.1967, p. 941; Ga.L.1968, pp. 2969, 2970). The defendant appeals from the trial court's overruling of his motion to suppress the prosecution's evidence and to dismiss the accusation against him for assault of a police officer, the trial court having certified the order for immediate review.
At the hearing on the motion the defendant first called the police officer as an adverse witness for cross examination. He testified that he received a radio signal meaning 'fire, disorder' and went to the defendant's residence. When he got there the defendant's wife came out on the porch. He went up on the porch and found the defendant's wife and mother-in-law were scared; they grabbed him and took him to the rear of the house. The wife asked him to go in the house. He talked to the wife and she showed him a pile of papers in the back of the house. The defendant came in from another room and the officer tried to ask him about setting the house on fire. The defendant was mumbling and cussing and stated somebody stole him snuff, and officers and caught him and hurt him in some way. He told the defendant he was not going to hurt him, and 'that's when he turned on me.' The defendant then presented as witnesses the defendant's wife, mother-in-law, and daughter who contradicted the officer's testimony.
The evidence recited above supports a finding that the officer entered the premises lawfully without a warrant, at the request of the defendant's wife, to investigate the report of an offense. See Thomas v. State, 118 Ga.App. 359, 362, 163 S.E.2d 850. There was no evidence that the officer attempted to arrest the defendant. The case of Ronemous v. State, 87 Ga.App. 588, 591, 74 S.E.2d 676, relied on by the defendant, is therefore not applicable.
The record does not support the defendant's argument that 'the police officer's entry * * * was manifestly illegal' and therefore 'any evidence of the crime * * *...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Swift v. State
...finding, same should be upheld. In support it is argued that the following cases authorize such finding, to wit: Williams v. State,119 Ga.App. 557, 167 S.E.2d 756; Raines v. State, 123 Ga.App. 794, 182 S.E.2d 491; and Harris v. State, 120 Ga.App. 359, 170 S.E.2d 743. None of the cited cases......
-
Jones v. State
...Phrases should not be given varying meanings depending on the type case in which they appear. The dissent relies on Williams v. State, 119 Ga.App. 557, 167 S.E.2d 756 (1969), where it was shown by undisputed evidence that the defendant was offered a benefit for his confession. Obviously, th......
-
Brooks v. State
...in the testimony and find that the door was voluntarily opened. Code Ann. § 27-313(b) (Ga.L.1966, pp. 567, 571); Williams v. State, 119 Ga.App. 557, 167 S.E.2d 756; Harris v. State, 120 Ga.App. 359(1), 170 S.E.2d 743. Whether or not the police officers identified themselves as such prior to......
-
State v. Swift
...ruling of the trial court will be upheld where there is any evidence to authorize a finding in support of his order. Williams v. State, 119 Ga.App. 557, 167 S.E.2d 756; Hunt v. State, 8 Ga.App. 374, 377, 69 S.E. 42.' Brisendine v. State, 130 Ga.App. 249(1), 203 S.E.2d Judgment reversed. All......