State v. Vansant

Court of Appeals of Georgia

State v. Vansant

447 S.E.2d 348, 214 Ga. App. 127

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 26, 1994

DocketA93A0322

StatusPublished

This text of 447 S.E.2d 348 (State v. Vansant) 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. Vansant, 447 S.E.2d 348, 214 Ga. App. 127 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Beasley, Presiding Judge.

On certiorari, the Supreme Court has reversed our holding in Division 1 of State v. Vansant, 208 Ga. App. 772 (431 SE2d 708) (1993), which was that the superior court erred in granting Vansant’s motion to suppress. See Vansant v. State, 264 Ga. 319 (2) (443 SE2d 474) (1994). However, the Supreme Court has affirmed our holding in Division 2 that the trial court erred in entering a judgment of acquittal after granting the motion to suppress. Id. at (3). Accordingly, our decision is vacated with respect to Division 1 and the judgment, the judgment of the Supreme Court is made the judgment of this court, and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.

McMurray, P. J., and Senior Appellate Judge Harold R. Banke concur. [128]*128Decided July 26, 1994. Britt R. Priddy, District Attorney, B. Martin First, Assistant District Attorney, for appellant. Richard L. Hodge, Vansant, Corriere, McClure & Dasher, K. Alan Dasher, for appellee.

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

Beasley, Presiding Judge.

On certiorari, the Supreme Court has reversed our holding in Division 1 of State v. Vansant, 208 Ga. App. 772 (431 SE2d 708) (1993), which was that the superior court erred in granting Vansant’s motion to suppress. See Vansant v. State, 264 Ga. 319 (2) (443 SE2d 474) (1994). However, the Supreme Court has affirmed our holding in Division 2 that the trial court erred in entering a judgment of acquittal after granting the motion to suppress. Id. at (3). Accordingly, our decision is vacated with respect to Division 1 and the judgment, the judgment of the Supreme Court is made the judgment of this court, and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.

McMurray, P. J., and Senior Appellate Judge Harold R. Banke concur. [128]*128Decided July 26, 1994. Britt R. Priddy, District Attorney, B. Martin First, Assistant District Attorney, for appellant. Richard L. Hodge, Vansant, Corriere, McClure & Dasher, K. Alan Dasher, for appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

447 S.E.2d 348, 214 Ga. App. 127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-vansant-gactapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack