Gresham v. Edwards

15 Citing cases

  1. Magistrate Court v. Fleming

    284 Ga. 457 (Ga. 2008)   Cited 5 times

    Such an evidentiary policy is contrary to longstanding evidentiary rules that hearsay is legal evidence at a preliminary hearing and is, by itself, a sufficient basis on which to bind a case over to the appropriate superior or state court.Gresham v. Edwards, 281 Ga. 881, 882-883 ( 644 SE2d 122) (2007); Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 v. S. 103, 120 ( 95 SC 854, 43 LE2d 54) (1975); 4 LaFave, Israel, King Kerr, Criminal Procedure, § 14.4 (b) (3rd ed. 2007). See also Handley v. Limbaugh, 224 Ga. 408, 413 ( 162 SE2d 400) (1968); Homer v. State, 257 Ga. App. 12, 14 ( 570 SE2d 94) (2002) (evidence that is admissible under some exception to the rule prohibiting hearsay has probative value).

  2. Bethel v. Fleming

    310 Ga. App. 717 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 5 times

    (emphasis supplied). Further, the MCDC argues that Gresham v. Edwards, 281 Ga. 881 ( 644 SE2d 122) (2007), does not conflict with its interpretation of these rules. We disagree.

  3. Leitch v. Fleming

    291 Ga. 669 (Ga. 2012)   Cited 19 times
    Noting that Code of Judicial Conduct may be implicated by "judges who consistently or willfully fail to follow clear and binding legal rules and precedents"

    b. Previously, this Court held that the Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses at trial does not apply to a preliminary hearing. Gresham v. Edwards, 281 Ga. 881, 644 S.E.2d 122 (2007), overruled on other grounds by Brown v. Crawford, 289 Ga. 722, 715 S.E.2d 132 (2011). In Gresham, we rejected the defendant's argument that he was denied his constitutional right of confrontation when the only witness, the investigating detective, was permitted to give hearsay testimony at the preliminary hearing.

  4. Fair v. State

    284 Ga. 165 (Ga. 2008)   Cited 65 times
    Upholding a 1:15 a.m. search “because the officers knew from experience that the peak time for drug dealers to conduct business was after midnight”

    ]" Leonard, supra at 794. See also Gresham v. Edwards, 281 Ga. 881, 882-884 (2) ( 644 SE2d 122) (2007) (holding that the right to confront witnesses at trial under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U. S. 36 ( 124 SC 1354, 158 LE2d 177) (2004), does not apply to preliminary hearings, because the right of confrontation is a trial right, and citing with approval several decisions from other states holding that Crawford is not applicable to pre-trial suppression hearings for that reason). (f) Standing.

  5. In re T. F

    295 Ga. App. 417 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 3 times

    In theInterest of D. W. B. See In re R. B. Accordingly, the juvenile court did not err in admitting hearsay testimony during T. F.'s transfer hearing. Gresham v. Edwards, 281 Ga. 881, 883 (2) ( 644 SE2d 122) (2007).Fair v. State, 284 Ga. 165, 176 (3) (e) ( 664 SE2d 227) (2008).

  6. Bell v. State

    291 Ga. App. 437 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 4 times

    Accordingly, this enumeration presents no basis for reversal. Banks v. State of Ga., 277 Ga. 543, 544 (1) ( 592 SE2d 668) (2004); see also Gresham v. Edwards, 281 Ga. 881, 883 (2) ( 644 SE2d 122) (2007) (the prohibition against testimonial hearsay set forth in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 ( 124 SC 1354, 158 LE2d 177) (2004), is not applicable to preliminary hearings).Wesson v. State, 279 Ga. App. 428, 431 (2) ( 631 SE2d 451) (2006).

  7. Lieser v. Miller

    CASE NO. 5:10-CV-2314 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 2, 2012)   Cited 1 times
    Comparing courts that have found "that the Confrontation Clause does apply to certain pretrial hearings" to courts "that have held the Confrontation Clause is only a trial right"

    And other courts have held the Confrontation Clause is only a trial right that does not apply to pretrial hearings. See, e.g., People v. Felder, 129 P.3d 1072, 1073-74 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005); Gresham v. Edwards, 644 S.E.2d 122, 124 (GA. 2007); State v. Sherry, 667 P.2d 367, 376 (Kan. 1983): State v. Harris, 998 So.2d 55, 56 (La. 2008); State v. Daly, 775 N.W.2d 47, 66 (Neb. 2009): Sheriff v. Witzenburs, 145 P.3d 1002, 1006 (Nev. 2006); State v. Rivera, 192 P.3d 1213, 1216 (N.M. 2008): People v. Brink, 818 N.Y.S.2d 374, 374-75 (App. Div. 2006): State v. Woinarowicz, 720 N.W.2d 635, 641 (N.D. 2006); Graves v. State, 307 S.W.3d 483, 489 (Tex. App. 2010): State v. Timmerman, 218 P.3d 590, 594-95 (Utah 2009). In his objections to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation, Lieser says three Supreme Court cases support his view that the right to confront witnesses applies at competency hearings.

  8. Brown v. Crawford

    289 Ga. 722 (Ga. 2011)   Cited 9 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Construing the Prison Litigation Reform Act

    Although this Court has held in several cases after the passage of the 1999 amendment that a petitioner may file a direct appeal from the denial of a pre-trial petition for writ of habeas corpus, these cases expressly rely on Nichols without acknowledging that the language of the Act is different now than it was when Nichols was decided. Accordingly, to the extent that they are inconsistent with this opinion, we hereby overrule Jackson v. Bittick, 286 Ga. 364–365(1), 690 S.E.2d 803 (2010); Lamb v. Bennett, 284 Ga. 810, 811, 671 S.E.2d 506 (2009); Massey v. St. Lawrence, 284 Ga. 780(1), 671 S.E.2d 834 (2009); Nguyen v. State, 282 Ga. 483, 484–485(1), 651 S.E.2d 681 (2007); Bryant v. Vowell, 282 Ga. 437, 651 S.E.2d 77 (2007); Gresham v. Edwards, 281 Ga. 881, 644 S.E.2d 122 (2007); Whitmer v. Conway, 279 Ga. 99, 610 S.E.2d 61 (2005); Tabor v. State, 279 Ga. 98, 99, fn. 1, 610 S.E.2d 59 (2005), and any other case which allows a petitioner to file a direct appeal from the denial of a pre-trial petition for writ of habeas corpus. In the present appeals, the Appellants each filed an appeal of an order on a pre-trial petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner, and thus they were required to file an application for discretionary review in this Court.

  9. State v. Daly

    278 Neb. 903 (Neb. 2009)   Cited 68 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming admissibility of PowerPoint presentation that included several diagrams, photographs, and videos illustrating medical terms and concepts

    See, Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730, 107 S. Ct. 2658, 96 L. Ed. 2d 631 (1987); Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 107 S. Ct. 989, 94 L. Ed. 2d 40 (1987); United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 94 S. Ct. 988, 39 L. Ed. 2d 242 (1974). See, e.g., State v. Timmerman, No. 20080206, 2009 WL 2835126 (Utah Sept. 4, 2009); State v. Rivera, 144 N.M. 836, 192 P.3d 1213 (2008); Gresham v. Edwards, 281 Ga. 881, 644 S.E.2d 122 (2007); State v. Woinarowicz, 720 N.W.2d 635 (N.D. 2006); Sheriff v. Witzenburg, 122 Nev. 1056, 145 P.3d 1002 (2006); Whitman v. Superior Court (People), 54 Cal. 3d 1063, 820 P.2d 262, 2 Cal. Rptr. 2d 160 (1991); State v. Sherry, 233 Kan. 920, 667 P.2d 367 (1983); Mitchell v. State, 84 Wis. 2d 325, 267 N.W.2d 349 (1978). (ii) Demonstrative Exhibits

  10. State v. Timmerman

    2009 UT 58 (Utah 2009)   Cited 35 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Declining to address an issue that was inadequately briefed

    In so doing, we note that a substantial number of jurisdictions have reached the same conclusion.See Whitman v. Superior Court, 54 Cal.3d 1063, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 160, 820 P.2d 262, 270 (1991) ("[I]t is doubtful that the federal confrontation clause operates to bar hearsay evidence offered at a preliminary hearing held to determine whether probable cause exists to hold the defendant for trial."); People v. Felder, 129 P.3d 1072, 1074 (Colo.Ct.App. 2005) ("Indeed, had the Court intended the rule of Crawford to apply at the pretrial stage, it would have revisited its prior decisions refusing to recognize a Sixth Amendment right of pretrial confrontation."); Gresham v. Edwards, 281 Ga. 881, 644 S.E.2d 122, 124 (2007) ("[There is] no indication in Crawford of a change from the Court's previous statements that the right of confrontation is a trial right. . . ."); State v. Sherry, 233 Kan. 920, 667 P.2d 367, 376 (1983) ("There is no constitutional right to allow the accused to confront witnesses against him at the preliminary hearing."); Sheriff v. Witzenburg, 122 Nev. 1056, 145 P.3d 1002, 1003 (2006) ("We conclude that the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause and Crawford do not apply at a preliminary examination."); State v. Rivera, 144 N.M. 836, 192 P.3d 1213, 1218 (2008) (concluding that the Confrontation Clause does not apply to pretrial suppression hearings); People v. Brink, 31 A.D.3d 1139, 818 N.Y.S.2d 374, 374 (N.Y.App.Div. 2006) ("We reject the contention of defendant that Crawford v. Washington applies to his pretrial suppression hearing and that reversal is required because his right of confrontation was violated at that hearing.") (citations omitted); State v. Woinarowicz, 720 N.W.2d 635