Legal Opinion

State v. Hughes

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided November 21, 2013No. A13A1399PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Ray, Judge.

The State appeals from the trial court’s grant of Jack Hughes’s motion to suppress the results of a blood test, contending that the trial court erred in concluding that the arresting officers lacked probable cause to request the blood test under the implied consent statute. For the following reasons, we reverse.

Upon review of a trial court’s grant or denial of a motion to suppress, we apply the clearly erroneous standard where the evidence is in dispute or the credibility of a witness is challenged, and

[the trial court’s] findings based upon conflicting evidence are analogous to…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Vansant v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1994
  3. Miller v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 2010
  4. Brown v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 2013
  5. State v. UnderwoodSupreme Court of Georgia · 2008

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Hughes v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 2015
  2. Hughes v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 2015

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

Powered by the Exa API