Clark v. Smith

Supreme Court of Georgia

Clark v. Smith

184 S.E.2d 822, 228 Ga. 205, 1971 Ga. LEXIS 520

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedOctober 21, 1971

Docket24802

StatusPublished

This text of 184 S.E.2d 822 (Clark v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Clark v. Smith, 184 S.E.2d 822, 228 Ga. 205, 1971 Ga. LEXIS 520 (Ga. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Mobley, Presiding Justice.

This court affirmed the judgment of Tattnall Superior Court denying relief to William Patrick Clark in a post-conviction habeas corpus proceeding. Clark v. Smith, 224 Ga. 766 (164 SE2d 790). One of the grounds of habeas corpus was that the appellant’s in-custody confession was erroneously admitted in evidence because he was not informed of all of his rights as announced in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (86 SC 1602, 16 LE2d 694, 10 ALR3d 974), which case was decided one day prior to the appellant’s trial. The Supreme Court of the United States reversed the decision of this court, citing the Miranda case, and remanded the case to this court for further proceedings. In conformity with the opinion and mandate of the Supreme Court of the United States, our former judgment in the case is vacated, and the judgment of Tattnall Superior Court is reversed. Direction is given that the appellant be returned to DeKalb Superior Court for another trial on the charge of rape.

Judgment reversed with direction.

All the Justices concur. Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, Marion O. Gordon, Assistant Attorney General, B. D. Dubberly, Jr., Courtney Wilder Stanton, Deputy Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mobley, Presiding Justice.

This court affirmed the judgment of Tattnall Superior Court denying relief to William Patrick Clark in a post-conviction habeas corpus proceeding. Clark v. Smith, 224 Ga. 766 (164 SE2d 790). One of the grounds of habeas corpus was that the appellant’s in-custody confession was erroneously admitted in evidence because he was not informed of all of his rights as announced in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (86 SC 1602, 16 LE2d 694, 10 ALR3d 974), which case was decided one day prior to the appellant’s trial. The Supreme Court of the United States reversed the decision of this court, citing the Miranda case, and remanded the case to this court for further proceedings. In conformity with the opinion and mandate of the Supreme Court of the United States, our former judgment in the case is vacated, and the judgment of Tattnall Superior Court is reversed. Direction is given that the appellant be returned to DeKalb Superior Court for another trial on the charge of rape.

Judgment reversed with direction.

All the Justices concur. Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, Marion O. Gordon, Assistant Attorney General, B. D. Dubberly, Jr., Courtney Wilder Stanton, Deputy Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 S.E.2d 822, 228 Ga. 205, 1971 Ga. LEXIS 520, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-smith-ga-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack