It is well established that a party in a criminal proceeding may make admissions in judicio in pleadings, motions, and briefs. See Bannister v. State, 202 Ga. App. 762 (1) (b) ( 415 SE2d 912) (1992). It is mere speculation whether, had Flint filed his petition earlier, the State could have recreated the hearing proceedings through the recollection of the trial judge, the ADA and defense counsel.
[Cits.]" Bannister v. State, 202 Ga. App. 762, 766 (1) (b) ( 415 S.E.2d 912) (1992). See also Froelich v. State, 210 Ga. App. 647, 648, fn. 1 ( 437 S.E.2d 358) (1993).
It has been recognized that a defendant in a criminal proceeding may make judicial admissions in his pleadings, motions, and briefs, and that such admissions bind the defendant. Bannister v. State , 202 Ga.App. 762, 766 (1) (b), 415 S.E.2d 912 (1992) ; see also Froelich v. State , 210 Ga.App. 647, 648 at n. 1, 437 S.E.2d 358 (1993). Wood's admission that the federal government filed an extradition request is binding on him for purposes of resolving his motion to dismiss.
(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Bannister v. State, 202 Ga. App. 762, 763 (1) (a) ( 415 SE2d 912) (1992). "The appellate court, in determining the propriety of disclosing the identity of an informant, may consider all relevant evidence contained in pretrial, trial and post-trial proceedings."
Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 ( 77 SC 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639) (1956); see Thornton v. State, 238 Ga. 160, 164-165 (2) ( 231 S.E.2d 729) (1977); Moore v. State, 187 Ga. App. 387, 388-393 (2) ( 370 S.E.2d 511) (1988). 202 Ga. App. 762, 763-766 (1) (b) ( 415 S.E.2d 912) (1992). Even if the informant had been identified, "defendant's argument concerning whether trial counsel would have called the witness to testify at trial is mere conjecture."
Moore, supra at 389, citing extensively Thornton, supra."Bannister v. State, 202 Ga. App. 762, 763 (1) ( 415 S.E.2d 912) (1992). "In determining if the [confidential informant's] identity should be revealed by the State, the trial court must conduct a two-step hearing.
(Citation omitted.) Bannister v. State, 202 Ga. App. 762, 763 ( 415 S.E.2d 912) (1992). In determining if the CI's identity should be revealed by the State, the trial court must conduct a two-step hearing.
As such, it is binding upon the party and estops the party from denying the admission or introducing any evidence to controvert the admission, even if it is untrue.' Green, Ga. Law of Evid. (3rd ed.), Admissions, § 233." Bannister v. State, 202 Ga. App. 762, 766 ( 415 S.E.2d 912) (1992). However, "[a]dmissions in judicio apply only to facts in litigation."
As such, it is binding upon the party and estops the party from denying the admission or introducing any evidence to controvert the admission, even if it is untrue.' Green, Ga. Law of Evid. (3rd ed.), Admissions § 233." Bannister v. State, 202 Ga. App. 762, 763 (1b), 766 ( 415 S.E.2d 912). The same logic reveals that this direct appeal is not authorized under In re Hall County Grand Jury Proceedings, 175 Ga. App. 349, supra, as the rights of petitioners are not undermined by the absence of appellate review.
ontempt is not a "motion made prior to trial" within the meaning of USCR 6.1. Moreover, a trial judge is presumed to know the law, Rowe v. Rowe, 195 Ga. App. 493 (2) ( 393 S.E.2d 750), and would not abuse his discretion by declining to dismiss a motion for failure to comply with the citation provisions of USCR 6.1. Moreover, the record does not establish that the trial judge prejudicially applied an erroneous legal standard. Further, appellant's contention that there was no stipulation to the facts contained in appellee's affidavit accompanying her petition is without merit; assuming arguendo, USCR 6.1 had been applicable, it does not require that facts contained in affidavits be stipulated. Also, appellant by his factual assertion in his brief that "no evidence other than [appellee's] unstipulated allegations of fact accompanied said petition," is an admission in judicio that the petition was accompanied by an affidavit of fact. Weir v. McGill, 203 Ga. App. 431, 432 ( 417 S.E.2d 57); Bannister v. State, 202 Ga. App. 762, 766 ( 415 S.E.2d 912); West v. Nodvin, 196 Ga. App. 825 ( 397 S.E.2d 567). Appellant's other assertions in support of this enumeration likewise are without merit. 2.