State v. Davidson

Court of Appeals of Georgia

State v. Davidson

231 S.E.2d 93, 140 Ga. App. 338, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 1458

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 20, 1976

Docket52914, 52915

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 231 S.E.2d 93 (State v. Davidson) 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

State v. Davidson, 231 S.E.2d 93, 140 Ga. App. 338, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 1458 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Smith, Judge.

The defendant was indicted for violating the Georgia Controlled Substances Act. He moved to suppress the evidence upon which the indictments were based. The state moved to dismiss because defendant’s motion did not allege that he had standing to challenge the search of the premises from which the evidence was seized. The trial court overruled the state’s motion to dismiss and granted the defendant’s motion to suppress. The state appeals the denial of its motion to dismiss.

1. The state argues that the defendant’s motion to suppress should have been dismissed because the defendant failed to show that he was aggrieved by the unlawful search and seizure. "Where possession is an essential element of the offense charged, a defendant can claim automatic standing to contest the validity of a search. Jones v. United States, 362 U. S. 257 (80 SC 725, 4 LE2d 697)." Herndon v. State, 138 Ga. App. 346 (226 SE2d 141). The trial court did not err in overruling the state’s motion to dismiss.

2. The defendant’s cross appeal is rendered moot by our decision on the main appeal.

Judgment affirmed.

Deen, P. J., and Webb, J., concur.

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

Smith, Judge.

The defendant was indicted for violating the Georgia Controlled Substances Act. He moved to suppress the evidence upon which the indictments were based. The state moved to dismiss because defendant’s motion did not allege that he had standing to challenge the search of the premises from which the evidence was seized. The trial court overruled the state’s motion to dismiss and granted the defendant’s motion to suppress. The state appeals the denial of its motion to dismiss.

1. The state argues that the defendant’s motion to suppress should have been dismissed because the defendant failed to show that he was aggrieved by the unlawful search and seizure. "Where possession is an essential element of the offense charged, a defendant can claim automatic standing to contest the validity of a search. Jones v. United States, 362 U. S. 257 (80 SC 725, 4 LE2d 697)." Herndon v. State, 138 Ga. App. 346 (226 SE2d 141). The trial court did not err in overruling the state’s motion to dismiss.

2. The defendant’s cross appeal is rendered moot by our decision on the main appeal.

Judgment affirmed.

Deen, P. J., and Webb, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 S.E.2d 93, 140 Ga. App. 338, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 1458, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-davidson-gactapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack