State v. Andrade, 298 Ga. 464

Aram Andrade was indicted for rape and burglary and moved to suppress statements he made to law enforcement as involuntary.
After a Jackson–Denno hearing, the trial court ruled one statement involuntary and granted suppression in part before trial began.
Seventeen days later the State filed a notice of appeal, citing OCGA § 5-7-1(a)(4) and filing within thirty days of the suppression order.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as untimely, reasoning the State should have appealed under OCGA § 5-7-1(a)(5), which requires a two-day notice.
The State petitioned the Georgia Supreme Court, which granted certiorari to resolve whether appeals from orders suppressing alleged involuntary statements fall under (a)(4) or (a)(5).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State may appeal a pretrial order suppressing an alleged involuntary statement under OCGA § 5-7-1(a)(4)	State: such appeals have long been authorized under (a)(4); notice may be filed within 30 days	Andrade: Court of Appeals treated suppression of statements as falling under new (a)(5) two-day rule	Court: Appeals from suppression of statements obtained unlawfully remain authorized by (a)(4); 30-day notice governs
Whether OCGA § 5-7-1(a)(5) displaced (a)(4) for statements suppressed as involuntary	State: (a)(5) addresses "other evidence" and did not change (a)(4) scope	Court of Appeals: (a)(5) covers exclusion of "any other evidence" including statements	Court: (a)(5) covers evidence other than that contemplated by (a)(4); it did not narrow (a)(4)
Whether the 2013 amendment altering OCGA § 5-7-1 added a new, limiting classification	State: 2013 act expanded State's appeal rights, did not alter wording of (a)(4)	Court of Appeals: treated (a)(5) as controlling for statement suppression appeals	Court: Legislative text and preamble show (a)(5) provided additional rights, not limitation of (a)(4)
Timeliness of the State's notice of appeal	State: timely under (a)(4) (filed within 30 days)	Andrade: untimely because should have been under (a)(5)'s 2-day rule	Court: notice timely under (a)(4); Court of Appeals erred in dismissal

Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 (1964) (establishes hearing on voluntariness of confessions)
Strickman v. State, 253 Ga. 287 (1984) (describes scope of appeals under former suppression statute)
State v. Watson, 143 Ga. App. 785 (1977) (Court of Appeals recognized appeals from suppression of involuntary statements)
State v. Chulpayev, 296 Ga. 764 (2015) (post-2013 decision treating (a)(4) as proper basis for appeals from suppressed statements)
State v. Cash, 298 Ga. 90 (2015) (State may appeal only to the extent authorized by statute)
State v. Lynch, 286 Ga. 98 (2009) (distinguishes appeals under (a)(4) from appeals based on general rules of evidence)