Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free! Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free! While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
	State Courts - Georgia - January 30, 2006
	Warner v. State, A05A1816., COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, January 30, 2006, Decided View this case - free   Overview: Where State attempted to prove that defendant, in raping victim, gave victim herpes, trial court improperly admitted evidence from positive blood test done at private laboratory. There was no evidence that sample was routinely handled, and there was no testimony about chain of custody from when sample was taken to when it was tested. Search Cases for Free | Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers | Case Summary Email Service - 50% off
	Wiggins v. State, S05G1215., SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, January 30, 2006, Decided View this case - free   Overview: Where defendant, a peace officer, was not given proper notice pursuant to O.C.G.A. §§ 17-7-52 and 45-11-4 after being charged with false writings and statements, in violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-10-20, arising from actions in the performance of his official duties, his motion to dismiss the indictment should have been granted as to that charge only. Search Cases for Free | Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers | Case Summary Email Service - 50% off
	Willoughby v. State, S05A2051., SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, January 30, 2006, Decided View this case - free   Overview: Where defendant was questioned as a witness at the police station regarding various crimes, he was not subjected to custodial interrogation and accordingly, Miranda warnings were not required; denial of his motion to suppress those statements was proper. Search Cases for Free | Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers | Case Summary Email Service - 50% off
	Back to Top
	www.lexisnexis.com |  About LexisNexis |  Terms & Conditions |  Customer Support |  Sitemap |  Contact Us   CopyrightŠ 2008  LexisNexis®  All rights reserved.