State v. Keith

Court of Appeals of Georgia

State v. Keith

228 S.E.2d 332, 139 Ga. App. 399, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 1825

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 9, 1976

Docket52238

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 228 S.E.2d 332 (State v. Keith) 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. Keith, 228 S.E.2d 332, 139 Ga. App. 399, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 1825 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, Chief Judge.

In this case, the trial court sustained the defendant’s motion to suppress solely because of the refusal of the state to disclose the identity of a confidential informant whose information furnished the grounds for probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant. In sustaining the motion the trial court heard no evidence. Held:

As a general rule, the public policy of this state supports the nondisclosure of the identity of an informant on whose information a search is based. Code § 38-1102; Chancey v. Hancock, 233 Ga. 734 (213 SE2d 633). Whether, as an exception to this general rule, disclosure should be required, is a matter that rests within the sound discretion of the trial judge based on the evidence. Scull v. State, 122 Ga. App. 696 (178 SE2d 720); Estevez v. State, 130 Ga. App. 215 (202 SE2d 686). Here the trial judge heard no evidence as he was required to do under Code § 27-313 (b). The mere refusal of the state to disclose the identity of an informer standing alone does not authorize a trial judge to exercise his discretion as to whether disclosure should be required.

Judgment reversed.

Clark and Stolz, JJ., concur.

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

Bell, Chief Judge.

In this case, the trial court sustained the defendant’s motion to suppress solely because of the refusal of the state to disclose the identity of a confidential informant whose information furnished the grounds for probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant. In sustaining the motion the trial court heard no evidence. Held:

As a general rule, the public policy of this state supports the nondisclosure of the identity of an informant on whose information a search is based. Code § 38-1102; Chancey v. Hancock, 233 Ga. 734 (213 SE2d 633). Whether, as an exception to this general rule, disclosure should be required, is a matter that rests within the sound discretion of the trial judge based on the evidence. Scull v. State, 122 Ga. App. 696 (178 SE2d 720); Estevez v. State, 130 Ga. App. 215 (202 SE2d 686). Here the trial judge heard no evidence as he was required to do under Code § 27-313 (b). The mere refusal of the state to disclose the identity of an informer standing alone does not authorize a trial judge to exercise his discretion as to whether disclosure should be required.

Judgment reversed.

Clark and Stolz, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 S.E.2d 332, 139 Ga. App. 399, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 1825, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-keith-gactapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack