Morrell v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Morrell v. State

486 S.E.2d 611, 226 Ga. App. 16, 97 Fulton County D. Rep. 1776, 1997 Ga. App. LEXIS 521

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 3, 1997

DocketA97A0261

StatusPublished

This text of 486 S.E.2d 611 (Morrell 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

Morrell v. State, 486 S.E.2d 611, 226 Ga. App. 16, 97 Fulton County D. Rep. 1776, 1997 Ga. App. LEXIS 521 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Pope, Presiding Judge.

Jimmy Morrell appeals from the trial court’s order striking his answer to a forfeiture complaint. Because Morrell’s answer failed to comply with the strict pleading requirements of OCGA § 16-13-49 (o) (3), we affirm.

An answer stating a claim to property subject to forfeiture must specifically set forth, among other things, the date, identity of transferor, and circumstances of the claimant’s acquisition of his interest in the property. See OCGA § 16-13-49 (o) (3) (D); State v. Alford, 264 Ga. 243, 245 (2) (a) (444 SE2d 76) (1994); Howard v. State, 223 Ga. App. 323 (477 SE2d 605) (1996); Jarrett v. State, 220 Ga. App. 559, 560 (1) (472 SE2d 315) (1996). In this case, the property in question is a large number of guns. Morrell did not list each item and describe how he got it. He did not even break them down into groups and describe how he got them. Instead, he simply stated that he had obtained all the guns through lawful means — through inheritance or purchase, or as gifts. This general information, without any dates, the identity of any of the transferors, or any other circumstances of his acquisition of the guns, is insufficient. Compare Knodel v. State, 222 Ga. App. 514, 516 (474 SE2d 700) (1996); Williams v. State, 222 Ga. App. 270 (474 SE2d 98) (1996). Accordingly, Morrell’s answer was properly stricken on this ground, and we need not address the alternative grounds the trial court relied on.

Judgment affirmed.

Johnson and Blackburn, JJ., concur.

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

Pope, Presiding Judge.

Jimmy Morrell appeals from the trial court’s order striking his answer to a forfeiture complaint. Because Morrell’s answer failed to comply with the strict pleading requirements of OCGA § 16-13-49 (o) (3), we affirm.

An answer stating a claim to property subject to forfeiture must specifically set forth, among other things, the date, identity of transferor, and circumstances of the claimant’s acquisition of his interest in the property. See OCGA § 16-13-49 (o) (3) (D); State v. Alford, 264 Ga. 243, 245 (2) (a) (444 SE2d 76) (1994); Howard v. State, 223 Ga. App. 323 (477 SE2d 605) (1996); Jarrett v. State, 220 Ga. App. 559, 560 (1) (472 SE2d 315) (1996). In this case, the property in question is a large number of guns. Morrell did not list each item and describe how he got it. He did not even break them down into groups and describe how he got them. Instead, he simply stated that he had obtained all the guns through lawful means — through inheritance or purchase, or as gifts. This general information, without any dates, the identity of any of the transferors, or any other circumstances of his acquisition of the guns, is insufficient. Compare Knodel v. State, 222 Ga. App. 514, 516 (474 SE2d 700) (1996); Williams v. State, 222 Ga. App. 270 (474 SE2d 98) (1996). Accordingly, Morrell’s answer was properly stricken on this ground, and we need not address the alternative grounds the trial court relied on.

Judgment affirmed.

Johnson and Blackburn, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

486 S.E.2d 611, 226 Ga. App. 16, 97 Fulton County D. Rep. 1776, 1997 Ga. App. LEXIS 521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morrell-v-state-gactapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack