Court Opinion

ID: 9584299
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:46:35.458069+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:07:28.396987
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
1. The state urges, for the first time, that the defendants lack standing to object to the lawfulness of the search of a vehicle. In the recent case of Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U. S. 128 (99 SC 421, 58 LE2d 387) the U. S. Supreme Court held that “Fourth Amendment rights are personal rights which may not be asserted vicariously” and that one must assert either a property or possessory interest in the premises searched or interest in the property seized.
Contrary to the state’s argument the defendant Peabody did testify that he was the owner of the vehicle in question. The defendant Craig, however, was apparently only a passenger in the vehicle. Nevertheless, the state did not challenge his standing in the court below nor in fact was any issue raised in this regard until the state filed its motion for rehearing. Furthermore, the evil inherent in conducting the motion to suppress before the jury and hearing evidence with regard thereto is clearly shown here. In order to establish the requisite standing, the defendant in the presence of the jury would have had to assert an interest in the property seized thereby prejudicing himself in the eyes of the jurors.
For the two cogent reasons stated above, we find the movant’s argument with regard to lack of standing not meritorious.
2. The state argues that in view of the strong evidence of defendant’s guilt any error in hearing evidence on the motion to suppress in the presence of the jury was harmless. Even excluding the items objected to by the motion to suppress, the evidence was sufficient to authorize the defendants’ convictions. However, we are not prepared to hold that such findings were demanded. It is therefore not possible to evaluate the effect of the evidence sought to be excluded vis-a-vis what the jury might have found in the absence of such evidence. Hence, we can neither ascertain nor may we presume that no harm accrued. To paraphrase the words of Judge Smith in Boyd v. State, 146 Ga. App. 359, 361 (246 SE2d 396), “the way to go on record” in order to require compliance with the provisions of Code Ann. § 27-313 (b) is “to reverse cases” wherein its procedure is not followed.

Motion for rehearing denied.