Of Counsel

Legal Notes on Georgia and The South

Court Update

Posted by Maggie on October 31, 2007

Again, I’m only going to cover Court of Appeals decisions this time, until I can catch up on the Supreme Court.  Decisions of Note:

Velasquez v. State, A07A1250.  The appeal is a loser for the defendant, but it lays out the rule of law for roadblocks if you don’t know it.

Evans v. State, A07A1080.  Another loser, but a thorough analysis of a drug trafficking case with two parties.  You know that whole but-it’s-not-my-car case where one claims they had nothing to do with it and testifies against the other.  Court gives the rule on whether this is accomplice testimony and generally considers the issue.

Merritt v. State, A07A0947.  When your client is charged with DUI-related crimes of a serious nature, make sure your client doesn’t screw himself on the medical intake form at the jail by disclosing that he drank a half gallon of vodka.  Court says this gets in as a routine administrative form not subject to Miranda.  The Court’s “concern” about having such a question on a form for DUI defendants still isn’t enough to overturn.

Smith v. State, A07A0866.  Motion to Suppress granted.  Officers had a tip on defendant’s boyfriend manufacturing meth.  Officer sees defendant driving down the road and follows her since he’s heard “rumors” that she’s involved in meth.  She stops in front of a locked gate, officers pull up behind her, three officers go up to the car.  An officer opens her door and instructs her to step out of the car.  This is enough to create an unlawful detention. 

English v. State, A07A1351.  Another case on the value prong in felony theft cases.  Make sure they bring the right evidence or you’ve got yourself an automatic misdemeanor.  Another noteworthy issue.  English was, unfortunately, a PD in Georgia.  The Georgia PD Chief had discussions with English after charges were brought to determine whether English would be fired.  English violated the first rule of being a defendant–don’t talk to anyone. about your case.  He discussed details with the Chief after the Chief specified this was not a privileged conversation, and those details were used to impeach him at trial. 


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: