Miller v. State

I write separately to emphasize that the majority’s outline on page 504 of the method of appellate review of motions to suppress applies only when, as here, the evidence was stipulated. Our review is never de novo when the decision below depended on live, testimonial evidence because such evidence, in view of Georgia precedents about the factfinder’s role, is technically never “uncontroverted.” In Georgia a trier of fact, judge or jury, may believe or disbelieve all or *507any part of the testimony of any witness.2 To require as a matter of law that a jury or a judge must believe a witness’s…