Hicks v. State
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Deen, Presiding Judge.
1. In an alleged consent search the burden is on the state to establish that the consent was voluntarily given and not the result of duress or coercion. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U. S. 218 (93 SC 2041, 36 LE2d 854) (1973); Code v. State, 234 Ga. 90, 93 (214 SE2d 873) (1975). The defendant here signed a consent to search. On a hearing on the motion to suppress based on the contention that the signature was forced, Hicks took the stand and testified that the only reason he signed the consent form just prior to the search was because the officers told him that if he…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Schneckloth v. BustamonteSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Grayson v. LynchSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Code v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1975
- Redd v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1978
- Glover v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1907
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Keri v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1986
- Kuptz v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1986
- Cox v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1982
- Ingram v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1986
- Jones v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1992
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.