Supreme Court of Georgia· 10/1/2001

Taylor v. State

Citations

553 S.E.2d 598
274 Ga. 269
2001 Fulton County D. Rep. 2969
2001 Ga. LEXIS 776

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

saying that the defendant’s statement was voluntary because it was not elicited by a “hope of benefit,” and “because the gun was [thus] the fruit of a voluntary statement, ... it is admissible at [the defendant’s] trial”
saying that the defendant’s statement was voluntary because it was not elicited by a “hope of benefit,” and “because the gun was [thus] the fruit of a voluntary statement, . . . it is admissible at [the defendant’s] trial”
noting the distinction between statements which are given involuntarily and those which are given in violation of Miranda
generally, reward of a lighter sentence is the “hope of benefit” to which OCGA § 24-3-50 refers
there was “an absence of demonstrated historical facts that the police were moving inevitably to the discovery of the gun” absent the illegal conduct
\[T]he `fruit' of a Miranda violation is not subject to the exclusionary rule under Georgia law.\ (footnote omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Fletcher, Benham, Divisions

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

69 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

31 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.