Connell v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Connell v. State

205 S.E.2d 513, 131 Ga. App. 213, 1974 Ga. App. LEXIS 1377

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 7, 1974

Docket49092

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 205 S.E.2d 513 (Connell v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Connell v. State, 205 S.E.2d 513, 131 Ga. App. 213, 1974 Ga. App. LEXIS 1377 (Ga. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinions

Deen, Judge.

1. In this prosecution for possession of narcotics discovered in a search under warrant, a motion to suppress based on inadequacy of the underlying warrant affidavit is properly overruled where the trial court is offered evidence (1) that the affidavit showed the informer on whose tip the search was made was reliable in that three times within the past two months he had given information which resulted in confiscation of drugs; (2) the officer testified that this was in fact true; (3) the informer stated that two days prior to contacting the officer he had seen the defendant with narcotics, and the officer promptly procured the warrant, and (4) this was a second tip, it appearing that the officer had been [214]*214informed of the defendant’s activity some two weeks prior to this by another person, and had been keeping the defendant’s lodging under sporadic surveillance in the interval. As to the sufficiency of the affidavit and warrant, cf. Hill v. State, 114 Ga. App. 527 (151 SE2d 818); Merritt v. State, 121 Ga. App. 832 (175 SE2d 890).

Submitted February 12, 1974 Decided March 7, 1974. Greenholtz & Hind, Hobart M. Hind, for appellant. William S. Lee, District Attorney, for appellee.

2. Objection was made to testimony by a witness who was the defendant’s probation officer in a prior conviction, and who stated that in a discussion relevant to the probated sentence, held with the defendant after his arrest and while in jail and awaiting trial on the present charge, the defendant admitted to him that the drugs found in his lodging did belong to him. The witness did not give the "Miranda warnings” at the outset of this conversation because, as he testified, his concern was not to provide evidence in the instant case but to make a report to the judge regarding the defendant’s behavior in connection with the probated sentence. There is no evidence in this record that the relations between the defendant and the probation officer were thought by Connell to be confidential, or that he was offered any inducement for admitting the illegal possession, and the testimony of the state is uncontradicted that he was in fact advised of his rights at the time the drugs were found and he was taken into custody. Under these circumstances no reversible error is shown. Wilson v. State, 229 Ga. 395 (191 SE2d 783).

Judgment affirmed.

Stolz, J., concurs. Hall, P. J., concurs specially in Division 2.

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

Deen, Judge.

1. In this prosecution for possession of narcotics discovered in a search under warrant, a motion to suppress based on inadequacy of the underlying warrant affidavit is properly overruled where the trial court is offered evidence (1) that the affidavit showed the informer on whose tip the search was made was reliable in that three times within the past two months he had given information which resulted in confiscation of drugs; (2) the officer testified that this was in fact true; (3) the informer stated that two days prior to contacting the officer he had seen the defendant with narcotics, and the officer promptly procured the warrant, and (4) this was a second tip, it appearing that the officer had been [214]*214informed of the defendant’s activity some two weeks prior to this by another person, and had been keeping the defendant’s lodging under sporadic surveillance in the interval. As to the sufficiency of the affidavit and warrant, cf. Hill v. State, 114 Ga. App. 527 (151 SE2d 818); Merritt v. State, 121 Ga. App. 832 (175 SE2d 890).

Submitted February 12, 1974 Decided March 7, 1974. Greenholtz & Hind, Hobart M. Hind, for appellant. William S. Lee, District Attorney, for appellee.

2. Objection was made to testimony by a witness who was the defendant’s probation officer in a prior conviction, and who stated that in a discussion relevant to the probated sentence, held with the defendant after his arrest and while in jail and awaiting trial on the present charge, the defendant admitted to him that the drugs found in his lodging did belong to him. The witness did not give the "Miranda warnings” at the outset of this conversation because, as he testified, his concern was not to provide evidence in the instant case but to make a report to the judge regarding the defendant’s behavior in connection with the probated sentence. There is no evidence in this record that the relations between the defendant and the probation officer were thought by Connell to be confidential, or that he was offered any inducement for admitting the illegal possession, and the testimony of the state is uncontradicted that he was in fact advised of his rights at the time the drugs were found and he was taken into custody. Under these circumstances no reversible error is shown. Wilson v. State, 229 Ga. 395 (191 SE2d 783).

Judgment affirmed.

Stolz, J., concurs. Hall, P. J., concurs specially in Division 2.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 S.E.2d 513, 131 Ga. App. 213, 1974 Ga. App. LEXIS 1377, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/connell-v-state-gactapp-1974.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack