Hunt v. State

Karnell Hunt appeals from his convictions for trafficking in cocaine, possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute, and possession of 3-4 methlyenedioxymethamphetamine with intent to distribute. Hunt contends the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress and by allowing the State to call his wife to the witness stand after she voiced an intent to invoke her marital privilege. Because the trial court erred by denying Hunt’s motion to suppress, we reverse. 1. Hunt contends the trial court should have granted his motion to suppress because the police searched his home based upon the unauthorized consent of a visitor who did not live in the home. When “reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, evidence is construed most favorably to uphold the findings and judgment. The court’s findings of fact will not be disturbed if there is any evidence to support them. We consider evidence from both the motion to suppress hearing and the trial.” Citations, punctuation and footnotes omitted. Hicks v. State , 287 Ga. App. 105 650 SE2d 767 2007.

So viewed, the record shows that eight to ten police officers went to a house at 3340 Clevemont Way in response to an anonymous telephone call concerning narcotics at that location. The officers did not conduct any surveillance before going to the address; instead, they went straight to it after receiving the anonymous phone call.