Ball v. Police Committee of City of Atlanta, 50901
| Decision Date | 15 October 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,No. 50901,50901,3 |
| Citation | 136 Ga.App. 144,220 S.E.2d 479 |
| Parties | W. R. BALL v. POLICE COMMITTEE OF the CITY OF ATLANTA et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Stephen A. Land, Decatur, for appellant.
Henry L. Bowden, John E. Dougherty, Atlanta, for appellees.
Following a shooting incident by a City of Atlanta police officer, several other policemen were charged with placing a knife known as a 'box cutter' in the aubomobile of the person who had been shot by the police officer.
A hearing was held before the Police Committee of the City of Atlanta as to the charges of conduct unbecoming an officer, conduct tending to reflect discredit upon the Department, and violation of the rules and regulations of said Department in that said officers entered into a conspiracy to protect the policeman who shot the deceased, by placing a knife in the automobile of the deceased.
The officers were discharged from employment. Officer W. R. Ball applied for a writ of certiorari to the Superior Court. The same was sanctioned and after a hearing, it was overruled and denied. The applicant for certiorari, Ball, appeals. Held:
1. A trial and conviction pursuant to a City Ordinance on charges of conduct unbecoming an officer of the Police Department in violation of the rules and regulations is a judicial proceeding, and a writ of certiorari will lie. See Heath v. City of Atlanta, 67 Ga.App. 85(1), 19 S.E.2d 746 2. Error is enumerated because the Police Committee was erroneously permitted to have access to an investigative file compiled prior to the trial. Said file allegedly contained statements and other materials outside the record and not admitted into evidence. But the appellant fails to point out wherein the contents of the investigative file may be examined. In order for this Court to correct errors of law, it is the duty of the appellant to show the existence of error, and in order to obtain reversal, he must show the error was harmful. See in this connection, Gulick v. Mulcahy, 95 Ga.App. 158, 160, 97 S.E.2d 362; Midland Properties Company v. Kennedy, 100 Ga.App. 37, 38, 110 S.E.2d 120; Childers v. Ackerman Const. Co., 211 Ga. 350, 356, 86 S.E.2d 227. The status of this enumeration of error is therefore such that we must hold it to be without merit.
The record shows at page 456 that the chairman's copy of the investigative file was supplied into evidence and marked P-3 for identification, but same cannot be located in the record. The Clerk of the lower court advises it is not in the record in the lower...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Housworth v. Glisson
...to reject abstention. 551 F.2d at 978. In noting the availability of relief through certiorari the court cited Ball v. Police Committee, 136 Ga.App. 144, 220 S.E.2d 479 (1975), which expressly states that the municipal administrative hearing was a "judicial proceeding." Id. at 145, 220 S.E.......
-
City of Columbus v. Leonard
...on 4-2 votes. Although review of the Board's decisions was clearly available in state court, see Ball v. Police Committee of City of Atlanta, 136 Ga.App. 144, 145, 220 S.E.2d 479, 480 (1975), respondents chose not to avail themselves of the further state proceedings. Instead, having lost in......
- CITY OF COLUMBUS v. LEONARD
-
Leonard v. City of Columbus, 75-2344
...to have the Board decision reviewed in the state courts, although such review is available, Ball v. Police Committee of the City of Atlanta, 136 Ga.App. 144, 220 S.E.2d 479, 480 (1975). As noted, following a trial in this action, the District Court disposed of the case on jurisdictional and......