State v. Stafford

In the absence of prejudice, the state's failure to sign or date the copy of the search warrant it left with the defendant was a "technical" violation of O.C.G.A. § 17-5-25, which did not constitute grounds for suppressing the defendant's DNA evidence.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

The State charged Tyron Stafford with two counts of rape, three counts of aggravated sodomy, kidnapping, two counts of armed robbery, burglary, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime. Stafford moved to suppress DNA evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant, before trial, arguing, among other things, that the State failed to comply with OCGA § 17-5-25 in executing the warrant. The trial court granted the motion. The State appeals, and we reverse and remand for further proceedings. 1. We must first address Stafford’s motion to dismiss, in which he asserts that the trial court’s ruling is not directly appealable. Stafford recognizes that, under OCGA § 5-7-1 a 4, the State may appeal directly “from an order, decision, or judgment suppressing or excluding evidence illegally seized.” He notes, however, that this provision does not authorize a direct appeal from “the exclusion of evidence which is based only upon some general rule of evidence.”1 And he claims that the trial court based its decision on a statutory rule akin to a general rule of evidence, rather than a determination that the evidence was seized illegally.

We disagree. Stafford argued below —and the trial court found —that the State’s alleged violation of the statutory rules governing execution of a search warrant rendered the search unlawful. Under Georgia law, “if a defendant moves before trial to exclude evidence on the ground that it was obtained in violation of law, the grant of such a motion . . . is subject to direct appeal on the part of the State.”2 This is true, regardless of whether the alleged illegal seizure resulted from a Constitutional or a statutory violation.3 Accordingly, the trial court’s order is directly appealable under OCGA § 5-7-1 a 4.

State v. Stafford

In the absence of prejudice, the state's failure to sign or date the copy of the search warrant it left with the defendant was a "technical" violation of O.C.G.A. § 17-5-25, which did not constitute grounds for suppressing the defendant's DNA evidence.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report