10 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2023 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Georgia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Baptiste v. Stategreen1 sentence2023See also Baptiste, 288 Ga. at 656 (2) (where the State could not produce search warrant affidavits at suppression hearing, trial court did not err by relying on “the testimony of the investigator as to the contents of the missing affidavits”); former OCGA § 24-5-21 (“[I]f a paper shall have been lost or destroyed, proof of the fact to the court shall admit secondary evidence.”).9 In this case, the detective — who testified at trial — presumably could have testified at a pretrial suppression hearing as to the contents of his affidavit. | 1 | 1 |
Edwards v. Lewisgreen2 sentences2023The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” “It is well established that the right to counsel protected by the Sixth Amendment . . . is the right to the effective assistance of counsel.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Edwards v. Lewis, 283 Ga. 345, 348 (2) (658 SE2d 116) (2008). 2023The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” “It is well established that the right to counsel protected by the Sixth Amendment . . . is the right to the effective assistance of counsel.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Edwards v. Lewis, 283 Ga. 345, 348 (2) (658 SE2d 116) (2008). | 1 | 1 |
Mintz v. Stategreen2 sentences2010“To preserve an objection upon a specific ground for appeal, the objection on that specific ground must be made at trial, or else it is waived.” (Footnote omitted.) Mintz v. State, 273 Ga. App. 211, 212 ( 615 SE2d 152 ) (2005). 2010“To preserve an objection upon a specific ground for appeal, the objection on that specific ground must be made at trial, or else it is waived.” (Footnote omitted.) Mintz v. State, 273 Ga. App. 211, 212 ( 615 SE2d 152 ) (2005). | 1 | 1 |
Simmons v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1994The State does not challenge appellant’s assertion that the trial court committed successive errors by admitting during trial certain portions of appellant’s testimony from a pretrial suppression hearing, 4 cf. Simmons v. United States, 390 U. S. 377, 394 (88 SC 967, 19 LE2d 1247) (1968); United States v. Dollard, 780 F2d 1118 (III) (4th Cir. 1985), and refusing appellant’s request to admit his entire suppression hearing testimony, see OCGA § 24-3-38; West v. State, 200 Ga. 566 (1) ( 37 SE2d 799 ) (1946), on the basis that appellant was present to testify. | 1 | 1 |
Newsome v. Stategreen2 sentences1992Newsome v. State, 192 Ga. App. 846, 847 (1) ( 386 SE2d 887 ). 1992Newsome v. State, 192 Ga. App. 846, 847 (1) ( 386 SE2d 887 ). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Meddersgreen2 sentences1992Lego, supra, was based on ‘a pretrial suppression hearing at which conflicting evidence was presented as to the voluntariness of a confession . . .’ (Emphasis supplied.) However, in the instant case there was no conflict in the evidence presented.” State v. Medders, 153 Ga. App. 680, 681, 682 ( 266 SE2d 331 ). 1992Lego, supra, was based on ‘a pretrial suppression hearing at which conflicting evidence was presented as to the voluntariness of a confession . . .’ (Emphasis supplied.) However, in the instant case there was no conflict in the evidence presented.” State v. Medders, 153 Ga. App. 680, 681, 682 ( 266 SE2d 331 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lego v. Twomey
green
2 sentences1992Lego, supra, was based on ‘a pretrial suppression hearing at which conflicting evidence was presented as to the voluntariness of a confession . . .’ (Emphasis supplied.) However, in the instant case there was no conflict in the evidence presented.” State v. Medders, 153 Ga. App. 680, 681, 682 ( 266 SE2d 331 ). 1980Lego, supra, was based on "a pretrial suppression hearing at which conflicting evidence was presented as to the voluntariness of a confession ..." (Emphasis supplied.) However, in the instant case there was no conflict in the evidence presented. | 2 | 1980–1992 |
Stroud v. State
green
1 sentence2021“An appellate court determining whether a search was lawful mayconsider all relevant evidence of record, including that adduced at a pretrial suppression hearing and at trial.” Id. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Thompson v. State
green
2 sentences2018Thompson v. State , 289 Ga. App. 661 , 658 S.E.2d 122 (2007). 2018Thompson v. State , 289 Ga. App. 661 , 658 S.E.2d 122 (2007). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
West v. State
green
2 sentences1994The State does not challenge appellant’s assertion that the trial court committed successive errors by admitting during trial certain portions of appellant’s testimony from a pretrial suppression hearing, 4 cf. Simmons v. United States, 390 U. S. 377, 394 (88 SC 967, 19 LE2d 1247) (1968); United States v. Dollard, 780 F2d 1118 (III) (4th Cir. 1985), and refusing appellant’s request to admit his entire suppression hearing testimony, see OCGA § 24-3-38; West v. State, 200 Ga. 566 (1) ( 37 SE2d 799 ) (1946), on the basis that appellant was present to testify. 1994The State does not challenge appellant’s assertion that the trial court committed successive errors by admitting during trial certain portions of appellant’s testimony from a pretrial suppression hearing, 4 cf. Simmons v. United States, 390 U. S. 377, 394 (88 SC 967, 19 LE2d 1247) (1968); United States v. Dollard, 780 F2d 1118 (III) (4th Cir. 1985), and refusing appellant’s request to admit his entire suppression hearing testimony, see OCGA § 24-3-38; West v. State, 200 Ga. 566 (1) ( 37 SE2d 799 ) (1946), on the basis that appellant was present to testify. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co.
green
2 sentences1984Therefore, the reasoning of Davis that the constitutional right must prevail over the state’s interest in protecting juveniles applies with equal force here.” Smith, 443 U. S., supra at 104 . (d) In Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U. S. 368 (99 SC 2898, 61 LE2d 608) (1979), the immediate question for decision concerned closure by the trial judge of a pretrial suppression hearing in a murder trial at the behest of the defendant, and without objection by the prosecuting attorney. 1984Therefore, the reasoning of Davis that the constitutional right must prevail over the state's interest in protecting juveniles applies with equal force here." Smith, 443 U. S., supra at 104 . (d) In Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U. S. 368 (99 SC 2898, 61 LE2d 608) (1979), the immediate question for decision concerned closure by the trial judge of a pretrial suppression hearing in a murder trial at the behest of the defendant, and without objection by the prosecuting attorney. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Gannett Co. v. DePasquale
green
2 sentences1984Therefore, the reasoning of Davis that the constitutional right must prevail over the state’s interest in protecting juveniles applies with equal force here.” Smith, 443 U. S., supra at 104 . (d) In Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U. S. 368 (99 SC 2898, 61 LE2d 608) (1979), the immediate question for decision concerned closure by the trial judge of a pretrial suppression hearing in a murder trial at the behest of the defendant, and without objection by the prosecuting attorney. 1984Therefore, the reasoning of Davis that the constitutional right must prevail over the state's interest in protecting juveniles applies with equal force here." Smith, 443 U. S., supra at 104 . (d) In Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U. S. 368 (99 SC 2898, 61 LE2d 608) (1979), the immediate question for decision concerned closure by the trial judge of a pretrial suppression hearing in a murder trial at the behest of the defendant, and without objection by the prosecuting attorney. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.