Newsome v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Newsome v. State

384 S.E.2d 223, 192 Ga. App. 111

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 27, 1989

Docket77094

StatusPublished

This text of 384 S.E.2d 223 (Newsome 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

Newsome v. State, 384 S.E.2d 223, 192 Ga. App. 111 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Beasley, Judge.

The Supreme Court in State v. Newsome, 259 Ga. 187 (378 SE2d 125) (1989), has reversed the decision in Newsome v. State, 189 Ga. App. 329 (1) (375 SE2d 621) (1988). The judgment is therefore vacated.

The basis for reversal of the trial court by this court was the violation of OCGA § 15-12-171. Because of our ruling we did not pass upon defendant’s enumeration of error regarding the failure to supply him with a copy of his statement pursuant to OCGA § 17-7-210. Nevertheless, we noted that the law requires production only of custodial statements, Johnson v. State, 177 Ga. App. 705 (1) (340 SE2d 662) [112]*112(1986), and a defendant is not in custody at the time of his statement when he is out on bond. Martin v. State, 179 Ga. App. 551, 553 (5) (347 SE2d 247) (1986). That being the case here, the court did not err in this regard.

Decided June 27, 1989. Frank G. Smith, August F. Siemon III, for appellant. Thomas J. Charron, District Attorney, Debra H. Bernes, Nancy I. Jordan, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed in conformity with the mandate of the Supreme Court.

Judgment affirmed.

Banke, P. J., and Birdsong, J., concur.

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

Beasley, Judge.

The Supreme Court in State v. Newsome, 259 Ga. 187 (378 SE2d 125) (1989), has reversed the decision in Newsome v. State, 189 Ga. App. 329 (1) (375 SE2d 621) (1988). The judgment is therefore vacated.

The basis for reversal of the trial court by this court was the violation of OCGA § 15-12-171. Because of our ruling we did not pass upon defendant’s enumeration of error regarding the failure to supply him with a copy of his statement pursuant to OCGA § 17-7-210. Nevertheless, we noted that the law requires production only of custodial statements, Johnson v. State, 177 Ga. App. 705 (1) (340 SE2d 662) [112]*112(1986), and a defendant is not in custody at the time of his statement when he is out on bond. Martin v. State, 179 Ga. App. 551, 553 (5) (347 SE2d 247) (1986). That being the case here, the court did not err in this regard.

Decided June 27, 1989. Frank G. Smith, August F. Siemon III, for appellant. Thomas J. Charron, District Attorney, Debra H. Bernes, Nancy I. Jordan, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed in conformity with the mandate of the Supreme Court.

Judgment affirmed.

Banke, P. J., and Birdsong, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

384 S.E.2d 223, 192 Ga. App. 111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newsome-v-state-gactapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack