Citing references: Whatley v. State

631 S.E.2d 717 Court of Appeals of GeorgiaMay 16, 2006

Whatley v. State, 196 Ga. App. 73, 78 (5) ( 395 SE2d 582 ) (1990).

455 S.E.2d 333 Court of Appeals of GeorgiaMarch 9, 1995

State, 260 Ga. 49, 54 (2)(b), 389 S.E.2d 320 ; Whatley v. State, 196 Ga.App. 73, 75 (1), 395 S.E.2d 582 .

411 S.E.2d 65 Court of Appeals of GeorgiaSeptember 5, 1991

App. 315, 316 (1) ( 398 SE2d 409 ) (voluntariness of confession may look at evidence contained in entire record); Whatley v. State, 196 Ga.

Hendrix v. State

497 S.E.2d 236 Court of Appeals of GeorgiaDecember 9, 1997

Whatley v. State, 196 Ga. App. 73, 78 (5) ( 395 SE2d 582 ). A person is not in a state of custody merely because he is a prime suspect at the time he is interrogated by the police or their agent. See Vaughn v.

White v. State

473 S.E.2d 539 Court of Appeals of GeorgiaJune 25, 1996

Whatley v. State, 196 Ga. App. 73, 78 (5) ( 395 SE2d 582 ) (findings as to mixed question of law and fact made at a suppression hearing).

Herndon v. State

494 S.E.2d 262 Court of Appeals of GeorgiaNovember 18, 1997

Whatley v. State, 196 Ga. App. 73, 75 (1) ( 395 SE2d 582 ). Further, the trial court ruled that appellant’s motion raising this issue was untimely; this specific ruling has not been enumerated as error. Compare Chezem v. State, 199 Ga.

Thompson v. State

506 S.E.2d 201 Court of Appeals of GeorgiaAugust 20, 1998

Whatley v. State, 196 Ga. App. 73, 78 (5) ( 395 SE2d 582 ) [(1990)]. A person is not in a state of custody merely because he is a prime suspect at the time he is interrogated by the police or their agent. See Vaughn v.

Datz v. State

436 S.E.2d 506 Court of Appeals of GeorgiaOctober 13, 1993

Whatley v. State, 196 Ga. App. 73, 78 (5) ( 395 SE2d 582 ). Compare D'Anna v. State, 201 Ga. App. 731 (1) ( 412 SE2d 857 ) where the defendant was determined to be in custody for purposes of OCGA § 17-7-210.

Bryant v. State

494 S.E.2d 353 Court of Appeals of GeorgiaNovember 24, 1997

State, 260 Ga. 49, 54 (2) (b) ( 389 SE2d 320 ); Whatley v. State, 196 Ga. App. 73, 75 (1) ( 395 SE2d 582 ). Appellant’s second enumeration, as crafted, is without merit. Decided November 24, 1997. Walter E. Van Heiningen, for appellant. H.

Hopkins v. State

434 S.E.2d 74 Court of Appeals of GeorgiaJune 24, 1993

See Whatley v. State, 196 Ga. App. 73 (1) ( 395 SE2d 582 ) (1990). Moreover, any assertion of error regarding the trial court’s failure to charge on “reasonable discipline” is also without merit. In Allen v. State, 174 Ga.

Carroll v. State

430 S.E.2d 649 Court of Appeals of GeorgiaMarch 19, 1993

App. 520, 521 (3) ( 414 SE2d 733 ); Whatley v. State, 196 Ga. App. 73, 78 (5) ( 395 SE2d 582 ). The second or written statement was given after defendant's arrest and after she was read the Miranda warnings.

Bonilla v. State

419 S.E.2d 495 Court of Appeals of GeorgiaMay 13, 1992

State, 260 Ga. 49, 54 (2 b) ( 389 SE2d 320 ); Whatley v. State, 196 Ga. App. 73, 75 (1) ( 395 SE2d 582 ) and cases cited therein. 3.

Rucker v. State

406 S.E.2d 277 Court of Appeals of GeorgiaJune 4, 1991

Whatley v. State, 196 Ga. App. 73, 77 (4) ( 395 SE2d 582 ) (1990). Decided June 4, 1991. James T. Barfield III, for appellant. Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, Alfred D. Dixon, Joseph J. Drolet, Rebecca A.

Wright v. State

405 S.E.2d 757 Court of Appeals of GeorgiaMay 17, 1991

When this appellate standard is found to exist, we are per force finding that the evidence does not demand an acquittal as a matter of law (compare Whatley v. State, 196 Ga. App. 73, 76 (3) ( 395 SE2d 582 )).

Pollard v. State

518 S.E.2d 463 Court of Appeals of GeorgiaMay 26, 1999

Hendrix, supra; Whatley v. State, 196 Ga. App. 73, 78 (5) ( 395 SE2d 582 ) (1990). 4. Pollard argues that his incriminating custodial statements made at the police station were involuntary and therefore inadmissible at trial.

Grissett v. State

405 S.E.2d 542 Court of Appeals of GeorgiaApril 11, 1991

Whatley v. State, 196 Ga. App. 73, 76 (2) ( 395 SE2d 582 ). 2. Appellant asserts the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction.

Dowis v. State

501 S.E.2d 275 Court of Appeals of GeorgiaApril 7, 1998

See Whatley v. State, 196 Ga. App. 73, 75 (1) ( 395 SE2d 582 ) (1990). 3. Notice of demand by special appearance to abatement and motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

MacOn-bibb County Hospital Authority v. Reece

492 S.E.2d 292 Court of Appeals of GeorgiaSeptember 16, 1997

Whatley v. State, 196 Ga. App. 73, 78 ( 395 SE2d 582 ) (1990) (whether defendant was in custody for Miranda purposes a mixed question of law and fact). Accordingly, summary judgment was improperly granted to the county on this issue.

Murray v. State

418 S.E.2d 624 Court of Appeals of GeorgiaApril 8, 1992

App. 547 (1) ( 405 SE2d 542 ), citing Whatley v. State, 196 Ga. App. 73, 76 (2) ( 395 SE2d 582 ).

Nealy v. State

498 S.E.2d 119 Court of Appeals of GeorgiaFebruary 24, 1998

Whatley v. State, 196 Ga. App. 73, 76 (2) ( 395 SE2d 582 ) (1990). Decided February 24, 1998. Thomas J. Barrett, Jr., for appellant. Tommy K. Floyd, District Attorney, Marie R. Banks, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

Williams v. State

427 S.E.2d 846 Court of Appeals of GeorgiaFebruary 17, 1993

Whatley v. State, 196 Ga. App. 73, 76 (3) ( 395 SE2d 582 ) (1990). Appellant argues that there was no evidence of kidnapping because Mrs. Williams did not scream or try to resist appellant.

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list