Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Smith v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided July 16, 2003No. A03A0669, A03A0673Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partAdams, Judge

I concur in Divisions 1 and 3, and concur in that portion of Division 2 that finds that the initial questioning of Smith was within the limited scope of an initial on-scene investigation and that the officer’s actions violated Miranda. I must respectfully dissent, however, as to the remainder of Division 2 because I do not believe the error was harmless under the circumstances. I further dissent to Division 4 because I do not believe that the state proved that Smith’s consent was voluntary.

Although the majority correctly notes that Smith was entitled to a Miranda warning at the time the…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Terry v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  2. Wong Sun v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  3. Wilson v. ZantSupreme Court of Georgia · 1982
  4. Pledger v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2002
  5. State v. GeraceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1993

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API