Felix v. State

Summary

After granting certiorari to examine the Court of Appeals' treatment of appellants' single-enumeration, multi-argument challenge to the denial of their motion to suppress, the Supreme Court of Georgia rejected the practice of declining, under OCGA § 5-6-40, to review assertions of error lumped within one enumeration. It held that the constitutional power to protect a court's judgments does not authorize appellate courts to shield their adjudications from further review, and it expanded the meaning of 'set out separately': an enumeration suffices when it identifies the trial court ruling claimed to be erroneous. It further defined an enumerable 'error' as one grounded in a specific trial-court ruling, concluding that supporting arguments — here, three alleged warrant defects and allegedly unlawful forcible entry — are not themselves errors of law and need not be separately enumerated, though the appellate court must address them. Finding the appellants' enumeration adequate, the Court vacated the Court of Appeals' judgment and remanded so the remaining suppression arguments would be considered.