Smith v. State
Court of Appeals of Georgia
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
- Terry v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Wong Sun v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Wilson v. ZantSupreme Court of Georgia · 1982
- Pledger v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2002
- State v. GeraceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1993
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.