Watts v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Watts v. State

161 S.E.2d 516, 117 Ga. App. 558, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 1137

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 1, 1968

Docket43528

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 161 S.E.2d 516 (Watts 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

Watts v. State, 161 S.E.2d 516, 117 Ga. App. 558, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 1137 (Ga. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Pannell, Judge.

The defendant was convicted of larceny from a house. This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence. Held:

1. “Section 13 of an Act of 1966 (Ga. L. 1966, pp. 567, 571; Code Ann. § 27-313) established a procedure for the suppression of evidence obtained by unlawful search and seizure and provided that a motion to suppress ‘shall be in writing and state facts showing wherein the search and seizure were unlawful.’ Defendant’s failure to interpose a timely motion to suppress pursuant to the Act amounted to a waiver of the constitutional guaranty in respect to the search and seizure involved in this case. See Ann. 50' ALR2d 531, 583-592. Gilmore v. State, 117 Ga. App. 67, 68 (159 SE2d 474). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in permitting the introduction in evidence of a billfold containing money allegedly stolen in the larceny over objections by the defendant that it was obtained by an illegal search of his person during an illegal arrest.

2. The billfold containing the money and the money being sufficiently identified, there was ho error in admitting them in evidence.

3. The evidence was sufficient to authorize the verdict. The trial court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Jordan, P. J., and Deen, J., concur. *559 Oliver, Oliver & Rea, Robert F. Oliver, for appellant. Herbert B. Kimzey, Solicitor General, for appellee.

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

Pannell, Judge.

The defendant was convicted of larceny from a house. This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence. Held:

1. “Section 13 of an Act of 1966 (Ga. L. 1966, pp. 567, 571; Code Ann. § 27-313) established a procedure for the suppression of evidence obtained by unlawful search and seizure and provided that a motion to suppress ‘shall be in writing and state facts showing wherein the search and seizure were unlawful.’ Defendant’s failure to interpose a timely motion to suppress pursuant to the Act amounted to a waiver of the constitutional guaranty in respect to the search and seizure involved in this case. See Ann. 50' ALR2d 531, 583-592. Gilmore v. State, 117 Ga. App. 67, 68 (159 SE2d 474). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in permitting the introduction in evidence of a billfold containing money allegedly stolen in the larceny over objections by the defendant that it was obtained by an illegal search of his person during an illegal arrest.

2. The billfold containing the money and the money being sufficiently identified, there was ho error in admitting them in evidence.

3. The evidence was sufficient to authorize the verdict. The trial court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Jordan, P. J., and Deen, J., concur. *559 Oliver, Oliver & Rea, Robert F. Oliver, for appellant. Herbert B. Kimzey, Solicitor General, for appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 S.E.2d 516, 117 Ga. App. 558, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 1137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watts-v-state-gactapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack