 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Bibbins12/1/2004
ct appeal. Defense counsel commented, ". . . it's an adversarial system but we're together wanting to know what the answers are type thing (sic)."
On appeal, the only "stipulation" of facts before this court is an attachment to both the state's and the defense's brief in which both counsel agree that the "Statement of Facts" section of their briefs shall constitute the "facts that would be adduced at trial." This Court may not consider documents attached to appellate briefs. High Voltage Vending v. Odom, 266 Ga. App. 537, 538 (597 SE2d 428) (2004). "Nevertheless, where `facts. . . necessary for disposition are stated in a brief, and the State concedes such statement is substantially correct, we are permitted to reach a decision upon the agreed upon facts.'" (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Williams v. State, 253 Ga. App. 10 (557 SE2d 473) (2001). Oddly, however, the one thing that is not stipulated is what the defendant said in response to the question of whether he would agree to a search. The parties agree that Bibbins's answer to the request for consent to search is inaudible on the video tape. Ultimately, Bibbins's answer proved irrelevant based on the law in Daniel v. State, 277 Ga. 840 (2) (a) (597 SE2d 116) (2004).
We caution the bench and bar that appeals may not be manufactured by the parties. The trial court should give full consideration of the merits of issues raised below based on the law and the facts as presented to it. It makes this Court's job much more tedious and difficult if it is required to sort out questions of whether proper procedure has been followed.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Georgia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|