In his second assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court erred in granting the state's motion to overrule appellant's motion to suppress. The trial court granted the state's motion on the ground that appellant's motion failed to state with sufficient particularity the issues to be decided. This court finds no merit in appellant's argument. The statement must be sufficiently specific to allow the prosecutor to respond and the trial court to rule. A motion that lacks specific detail and recites only the general language of statutes and regulations is properly denied.
Factual allegations justifying relief are also necessary.
R. 47 also expressly requires a memorandum which cites authority in support of the motion. A motion to suppress should be denied for the failure to state grounds for suppression with sufficient particularity as required by Crim. Thus, the motion did not satisfy the factual particularity requirements of Crim. Accordingly, appellant's second assignment of error is found not well-taken. On consideration whereof, the court finds that the defendant was not prejudiced or prevented from having a fair trial, and the judgment of the Erie County Court is affirmed.