Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Turner v. State

213 Ga. App. 77 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Turner v. State

3 Citing cases

  1. Schofield v. State

    582 S.E.2d 11 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 6 times
    Holding that witness's misstatement concerning the address of the crime scene did not render evidence of venue insufficient where testimony given otherwise supported the fact that the crime scene was in Fulton County and concluding that “[a]ny conflict in the evidence created by a misstatement of the address was resolved by the jury, as it is authorized to do, in favor of venue in Fulton County”

    Perry v. State, 154 Ga. App. 559(1) ( 269 S.E.2d 63) (1980).Turner v. State, 213 Ga. App. 77, 79(2) ( 443 S.E.2d 703) (1994). BLACKBURN, Presiding Judge.

  2. Dawson v. State

    518 S.E.2d 477 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 16 times
    Finding that "there was significant evidence of [drug detection dog's] reliability and training" in detecting drugs, and noting that "there is no way to verify whether the dog actually detected a residual odor of contraband or whether it made a false alert"

    Boggs v. State, 194 Ga. App. 264, 265 ( 390 S.E.2d 423) (1990). See also Turner v. State, 213 Ga. App. 77, 78(1) ( 443 S.E.2d 703) (1994); State v. Dopson, 204 Ga. App. 51-52 ( 418 S.E.2d 623) (1992). Judgment affirmed. McMurray, P.J., and Andrews, J., concur.

  3. Eppinger v. State

    500 S.E.2d 383 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 4 times

    Further, the information adequately predicted future acts and the details of the tip were verified by several officers' personal observations. Id.; Turner v. State, 213 Ga. App. 77, 78 (1) ( 443 S.E.2d 703) (1994). The fact that probable cause was predicated on the collective knowledge of several officers does not alter our conclusion that the trial court properly rejected Eppinger's motion to suppress.