GA: 404(b) evidence of a stop in another state required a motion to suppress, not just an objection

Defendant objected to 404(b) evidence of a stop in North Carolina but only when the state offered it at trial and not before. His argument that the state failed to prove it was lawfully seized fails because he failed to file a motion to suppress. Hernandez v. State, 2014 Ga. LEXIS 250 (March 28, 2014):

In this case, the State gave notice to Hernandez — about seven months before trial — that it intended to offer evidence of the North Carolina traffic stop as a similar transaction. Although Hernandez objected to the admission of that evidence on several grounds, he never argued before trial that the evidence had been unlawfully obtained, and he never filed a written motion to suppress. Instead, he waited until a hearing on the admissibility of the similar transaction evidence — held out of the presence of the jury, but midway through the trial — to say anything about the lawfulness of the North Carolina traffic stop. And even then, he pointed to no facts suggesting that the stop was unlawful. To the contrary, he merely argued that the State had failed to prove the lawfulness of the stop. The State, of course, had no burden to prove the lawfulness of the stop until its lawfulness was put in issue by a motion that complied with the statutory requirements, and it is undisputed that Hernandez filed no such motion. Accordingly, the trial court ruled that the State was not required to prove that the evidence was obtained lawfully. About this, the trial court was exactly right, and Hernandez has failed to preserve any error with respect to the suppression of the similar transaction evidence. Upon that ground, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

As to 404(b) and the exclusionary rule, see Treatise § 9.02.