Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Pastorini

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided October 18, 1996No. A96A0694Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partAndrews, Judge

Although I concur with Division 2, because I believe that the trial judge did not, under the facts of this case, make clearly erroneous factual or legal conclusions concerning whether Pastorini was “in custody,” I must respectfully dissent as to Division 1.

Pastorini filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of the field sobriety tests administered to him. The same appellate rules apply to our review of both a motion in limine and a motion to suppress. State v. Leviner, 213 Ga. App. 99 (1) (443 SE2d 688) (1994), quoting Baldwin v. State, 263 Ga. 524, 525 (1) (435 SE2d 926) (1993).…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Tate v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1994
  2. Rogers v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1992
  3. Hughes v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1989
  4. State v. LevinerCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1994
  5. Baldwin v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1993

4 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