Court Opinion

ID: 9566235
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:35:24.037501+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:33:33.403484
License: Public Domain

Carley, Chief Judge,
concurring specially.
I am constrained to concur with the majority’s affirmance of the trial judge’s grant of the motion to suppress in this case because, as pointed out by the majority, no testimony was presented at the motion hearings and “we cannot consider factual statements in the briefs that are not supported by the record.” (Majority opinion p. 794.) However, I am also constrained to opine that if there had been uncontradicted probative evidence of the allegations contained in the brief, this case would be controlled by Bonds v. State, 188 Ga. App. 135 (372 SE2d 448) (1988) and it would have been error to grant the motion to suppress.
*795Steven M. Harrison, for appellee.