Home/Court of Appeals of Georgia/Graves v. State

Graves v. State

219 S.E.2d 633, 135 Ga. App. 921, 1975 Ga. App. LEXIS 1875
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedSeptember 30, 1975
Docket51098
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 219 S.E.2d 633 (Graves 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
Graves v. State, 219 S.E.2d 633, 135 Ga. App. 921, 1975 Ga. App. LEXIS 1875 (Ga. Ct. App. 1975).

Opinion

Deen, Presiding Judge.

The holding of Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 (81 SC 1684, 6 LE2d 1081), that all evidencé obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Federal Constitution is inadmissible in state courts, is only an exclusionary rule and does not affect the competence of evidence admitted without timely challenge. Gilmore v. State, 117 Ga. App. 67 (2) (159 SE2d 474). In Georgia the exclusionary rule is firmly embedded in our statutory law; Ga. L. 1966, pp. 567, 571 (Code Ann. § 27-313) establishes a procedure for suppression of evidence obtained by unlawful search and seizure. This statute specifically provides that the motion to suppress evidence illegally seized "shall be in writing *922 and state facts showing wherein the search and seizure were unlawful.” The record in the case sub judice reveals that appellant’s motion was made orally. A motion to suppress which is procedurally defective is properly overruled. Cadle v. State, 131 Ga. App. 175 (205 SE2d 529). A motion to suppress which is made orally is procedurally defective and a denial thereof is authorized. Hiatt v. State, 132 Ga. App. 289 (1) (208 SE2d 163). It was therefore not error for the trial judge to overrule appellant’s oral motion to suppress evidence. Nor can appellant’s motion be upheld as an oral objection to evidence obtained by unlawful search and seizure. "Since the Act of 1966, an oral objection to evidence obtained by unlawful search and seizure is not sufficient unless preceded by suppression of the evidence pursuant to a motion to suppress in compliance with the Act... Failure to interpose a timely motion to suppress in compliance with the Act amounts to a waiver of the constitutional guaranty in respect to the search and seizure in question.” Brannen v. State, 117 Ga. App. 69 (2) (159 SE2d 476); Gilmore v. State, 117 Ga. App. 67 (2) (159 SE2d 474); Lane v. State, 118 Ga. App. 688 (165 SE2d 474); Bissel v. State, 126 Ga. App. 61 (189 SE2d 701).

Judgment affirmed.

Evans and Stolz, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Nelson v. State
699 S.E.2d 66 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2010)
Copeland v. State
537 S.E.2d 78 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2000)
Harris v. State
405 S.E.2d 501 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1991)
Thompson v. State
392 S.E.2d 732 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1990)
Dennis v. State
305 S.E.2d 443 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1983)
Rucker v. State
297 S.E.2d 481 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1982)
Dorsey v. State
232 S.E.2d 405 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1977)
Singleton v. State
227 S.E.2d 472 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1976)
Hudson v. State
224 S.E.2d 48 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1976)
Terrell v. State
222 S.E.2d 642 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
219 S.E.2d 633, 135 Ga. App. 921, 1975 Ga. App. LEXIS 1875, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/graves-v-state-gactapp-1975.