Court Opinion

ID: 9589733
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:47:56.069197+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:34:23.234157
License: Public Domain

Gunter, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
I concur in the reversal of the conviction under Indictment 78. And if a new trial is held on this charge, appellant can file a written motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Code Ann. § 27-313.
However, as I read our suppression statute, an oral motion to suppress evidence made during the course of a trial when the evidence is sought to be introduced, and the oral motion being taken down by the court reporter to become a part of the transcript, is the equivalent of making a written motion to suppress evidence as contemplated by our statute.
I am in disagreement with the ruling on this point contained in Brannen v. State, 117 Ga. App. 69 (159 SE2d 476) (1967), and this court’s ruling today relying on that case.
As a result of today’s decision, a motion to suppress made during the course of the trial and dictated to the court reporter for inclusion in the transcript is insufficient to comply with our statute and amounts to a waiver of the statutory right to suppress evidence. My interpretation of the statute is to the contrary, and I would hold that an oral motion to suppress dictated to a court reporter during a trial is the equivalent of a written motion that complies with the suppression statute.
With respect to Indictment 27,1 do not consider the error to have been harmless.