# State v. Brown

> Court of Appeals of Georgia · March 2, 1988 · 186 Ga. App. 155

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9848323

## Case

- **Full name:** The STATE v. BROWN Et Al.
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Georgia
- **Decided:** March 2, 1988
- **Citations:** 186 Ga. App. 155; 366 S.E.2d 816; 1988 Ga. App. LEXIS 297
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Banke
- **Judges:** Benham, Banke, Carley
- **Cited by:** 21 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9848323

## Opinion text

Banke, Presiding Judge,
concurring specially.
The trial judge’s decision to grant the motion to suppress was based, in part, on the following finding of fact: “[The affiant’s] testimony is not credible in that he was unable to corroborate, in any manner, his testimony of when and where the surveillance took place and the number of individuals who were allegedly seen going to and from [the defendant’s residence].”
The trial judge sits as the ultimate trier of fact at a hearing on a motion to suppress, and his findings will not be disturbed if there is any evidence to support them. State v. Swift, 232 Ga. 535, 536 ( 207 SE2d 459 ) (1974). “Credibility of witnesses, resolution of any conflict or inconsistency, and weight to be accorded testimony [are] solely the province of the judge on a motion to suppress.” Rogers v. State, 155 Ga. App. 685, 686 ( 272 SE2d 549 ) (1980). Consequently, I agree that the grant of the motion to suppress should be affirmed.
I am authorized to state that Judge Carley joins in this special concurrence.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9848323. Public record. Not legal advice.