Hernandez v. State, 294 Ga. 903

Betancourt and Hernandez were convicted of trafficking in cocaine after a traffic stop on I-85 in Georgia revealed a large cocaine quantity in their car.
Evidence also showed a prior similar transaction: a North Carolina stop on I-77 where $195,000 was found in the car.
Hernandez challenged the admission of the North Carolina stop as a “similar transaction” evidence issue.
The Court of Appeals held the exclusionary rule did not automatically bar such evidence from out-of-state stops.
Hernandez did not file a written motion to suppress; trial proceeded with the State not required to prove lawfulness absent an in-writing motion.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals on the basis that Hernandez failed to preserve the suppression issue and expressed no opinion on exclusionary-rule reach for out-of-state evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Preservation of suppression issue for NC stop	Hernandez asserts suppression of NC stop evidence.	State contends no written motion = no preservation.	Not preserved; affirmation of Court of Appeals on this ground.
Exclusionary rule applicability to out-of-state similar transaction evidence	Hernandez seeks exclusion of NC stop evidence.	State not required to prove lawfulness absent proper motion; no ruling on out-of-state rule.	Court expresses no opinion on this subject.

Rucker v. State, 250 Ga. 371, 375 (11) (297 SE2d 481) (1982) (Ga. 1982) (preservation requires written motion to suppress; oral motions insufficient)
Gilreath v. State, 247 Ga. 814, 822 (2) (279 SE2d 650) (1981) (Ga. 1981) (same preservation principle for suppression motions)
Yeldell v. State, 240 Ga. 37, 38 (2) (239 SE2d 364) (1977) (Ga. 1977) (failure to state unlawful search can waive suppression error)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (U.S. 1984) (ineffective assistance standard for prejudice element)