Foote v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Foote v. State

232 S.E.2d 366, 141 Ga. App. 18, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 1737

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 11, 1977

Docket53268

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 232 S.E.2d 366 (Foote 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

Foote v. State, 232 S.E.2d 366, 141 Ga. App. 18, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 1737 (Ga. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Webb, Judge.

For a prior appearance of this case see Foote v. State, 136 Ga. App. 301 (220 SE2d 786) (1975), where we reversed Foote’s conviction of aggravated assault because a postponement to assure effective assistance of counsel had not been granted. Foote was again convicted upon retrial, and this appeal followed.

1. Enumeration of error 1 complains that the court erred in denying Foote’s pre-trial motion to suppress evidence which was directed to identification testimony of the state’s witnesses anticipated to be adduced at trial. This enumeration is without merit since a pre-trial motion to suppress is available only to a person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure (Code Ann. § 27-313; Pass v. State, 227 Ga. 730, 735 (7) (182 SE2d 779) (1971)) and in any event cannot be directed solely to testimony at trial. Baker v. State, 230 Ga. 741, 742 (1) (199 SE2d 252) (1973); Reid v. State, 129 Ga. App. 660 (2b, c) (200 SE2d 456) (1973) and cits.

2» Enumeration of error 2 urges that the court erred in failing to require the state to produce a photograph used in a pre-trial identification procedure. It appears, *19 however, that the district attorney submitted all the photographs and composites in his possession, and that the photograph referred to by defendant’s counsel was a mug shot in the files of the police in Clarke County. The district attorney offered to tell defendant’s counsel how a copy could be acquired, but counsel was not interested, stating "I just wanted him to produce it.” We find no reversible error in these circumstances since there has been no suppression of evidence as condemned in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (83 SC 1194, 10 LE2d 215) (1963).

Submitted January 6, 1977 Decided January 11, 1977. William D. Smith, for appellant. Cíete D. Johnson, District Attorney, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Deen, P. J., and Marshall, J., concur.

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

Webb, Judge.

For a prior appearance of this case see Foote v. State, 136 Ga. App. 301 (220 SE2d 786) (1975), where we reversed Foote’s conviction of aggravated assault because a postponement to assure effective assistance of counsel had not been granted. Foote was again convicted upon retrial, and this appeal followed.

1. Enumeration of error 1 complains that the court erred in denying Foote’s pre-trial motion to suppress evidence which was directed to identification testimony of the state’s witnesses anticipated to be adduced at trial. This enumeration is without merit since a pre-trial motion to suppress is available only to a person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure (Code Ann. § 27-313; Pass v. State, 227 Ga. 730, 735 (7) (182 SE2d 779) (1971)) and in any event cannot be directed solely to testimony at trial. Baker v. State, 230 Ga. 741, 742 (1) (199 SE2d 252) (1973); Reid v. State, 129 Ga. App. 660 (2b, c) (200 SE2d 456) (1973) and cits.

2» Enumeration of error 2 urges that the court erred in failing to require the state to produce a photograph used in a pre-trial identification procedure. It appears, *19 however, that the district attorney submitted all the photographs and composites in his possession, and that the photograph referred to by defendant’s counsel was a mug shot in the files of the police in Clarke County. The district attorney offered to tell defendant’s counsel how a copy could be acquired, but counsel was not interested, stating "I just wanted him to produce it.” We find no reversible error in these circumstances since there has been no suppression of evidence as condemned in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (83 SC 1194, 10 LE2d 215) (1963).

Submitted January 6, 1977 Decided January 11, 1977. William D. Smith, for appellant. Cíete D. Johnson, District Attorney, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Deen, P. J., and Marshall, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 S.E.2d 366, 141 Ga. App. 18, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 1737, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foote-v-state-gactapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack