Mrs. Sue Graddy Appellant was arrested and charged with manufacturing methamphetamine, manufacturing methamphetamine within 1000 feet of a school, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. She moved to suppress evidence seized from her house and the outbuildings on her property, and to dismiss the charges against her. The trial court granted the motions, but the Court of Appeals reversed. State v. Graddy , 262 Ga. App. 98 585 SE2d 147 2003. We granted certiorari in order to address several issues raised by the opinion of the Court of Appeals. 1. The search was conducted pursuant to a warrant issued on the basis of hearsay statements attributed to an individual identified in the supporting affidavit as Andy Mills. Mills had been arrested on or near Appellant’s property, and he was charged with possession of a concealed weapon. After his arrest, Mills provided information to the authorities regarding his personal observation of the manufacture of methamphetamine by Appellant’s son on the premises. Having determined that this information established probable cause, the magistrate issued the warrant to search Appellant’s residence and the entire curtilage thereof. The trial court concluded that Mills’ reliability was not established, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that, “by admitting his presence during the making of methamphetamine, Mills was making statements against his penal interest. Cits.” Graddy v. State , supra at 103 2. We granted certiorari to consider whether there is a distinction between the admission at trial of hearsay statements that are against the penal interest of the declarant and the inclusion of such statements in an affidavit seeking issuance of a search warrant.
In Georgia, hearsay statements that are against the criminal interest of a third party declarant and exculpatory of the accused are inadmissible in criminal cases. Stanford v. State , 272 Ga. 267, 269 4 528 SE2d 246 2000. See also Green, Ga. Law of Evidence, 5th ed., § 286; Rumsey, Agnor’s Ga. Evid. 3rd ed., § 11-17. “If such admissions were allowed as evidence upon the trial of the accused, a person could subvert the ends of justice by admitting the crime to others and then absenting himself.” Timberlake v. State , 246 Ga. 488, 492 1 271 SE2d 792 1980.
