Hightower v. State

• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: Stolz; DEEN; EVANS; STOLZ; STOLZ
• Citation: Hightower v. State, 217 S.E.2d 325, 135 Ga.App. 92 (Ga. App. 1975)
• Decision Date: 20 May 1975
• Docket Number: No. 3,No. 50620,50620,3
• Parties: C. A. HIGHTOWER v. The STATE

Page 325

217 S.E.2d 325

135 Ga.App. 92

C. A. HIGHTOWER v. The STATE.

No. 50620.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 3.

May 20, 1975.

Rehearing Denied June 13, 1975.

Opinion withdrawn, see 224 S.E.2d 842.

Stolz, J., concurred specially and filed an opinion.

Robert M. Coker, Atlanta, for appellant.

Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Joseph J. Drolet, Carol E. Wall, Asst. Dist. Attys., Atlanta, for appellee.

DEEN, Presiding Judge.

Hightower spent forty-five days in jail awaiting a commitment hearing following his arrest on July 1, 1973, and a total of 85 days in jail prior to his trial on November 16. He was unable to make a $9,200 bond set on July 8, and was first provided with counsel on September 19, over a month after the commitment hearing. By that time two eyewitnesses to the shooting for which he was being held on an aggravated assault charge had apparently disappeared. He contends that he did not waive, or at least did not knowingly and understandingly waive either right to counsel or right to be brought before an examining magistrate within 72 hours as provided by Code Ann. § 27-210. He was indicted on September 17, also prior to appointment of counsel, and the latter's motion to quash the indictment was heard and denied on October 9. Held:

1. Code Chapter 27-4 relating to courts of inquiry unmistakably requires an adversary proceeding in the first instance to determine whether there is probable cause to bind the defendant over to the grand jury on a felony charge. In particular, the first sentence of Code § 27-403, which has been the law since our original Code of 1863, requires: 'A reasonable time shall be given to the defendant or prosecutor for the preparation of his case, and in no event shall the defendant be forced to trial without the aid of counsel, if there be a reasonable probability of his securing counsel without too great delay.' (Emphasis supplied.) This refers not to trial on the merits but to the commitment hearing only, as shown by its original codification as § 4613 of Article III, 'Of Courts of Inquiry' of the Penal Code of 1863.

2. It may be judicially noted that the commission drafting the original Code of Georgia under the Codification Act approved December 19, 1858 studied and was to some extent influenced by Alabama jurisprudence prevailing at the time. Examination of our inquiry courts system as codified in Code Chapter 27-4 and that of Alabama codified under Title 15, Chapter 6 of the Alabama Code, shows many striking similarities. Although Alabama law did not spell out explicitly the need for counsel, the Supreme Court held in Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1, 90 S.Ct. 1999, 26 L.Ed.2d 387 that the Alabama procedure for committal hearings is an adversary procedure and that the 'guiding hand of counsel' is an essential fair trial right of the defendant.

3. Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 95 S.Ct. 854, 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975) in no way undercuts Coleman, although it does fix the boundaries of the decision. Gerstein, dealing with a Florida statute, made the double holding that, while the prosecutor's assessment of probable cause without more is insufficient to justify restraint of liberty pending trial, nevertheless, where a determination of probable cause can be made by a judicial officer informally and without an adversary hearing (the procedure followed in Florida) the probable cause determination is not such a critical stage in the prosecution as to require appointed counsel. It limned the distinction between Florida and Alabama procedures, and elaborated: 'A full (adversary) preliminary hearing . . . is modeled after the procedure used in many States to determine whether the evidence justifies going to trial under an information or presenting the case to a grand jury. See Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1, 90 S.Ct. 1999, 26 L.Ed.2d 387 . . .. In Coleman v. Alabama, where the Court held that a preliminary hearing was a critical stage of an Alabama prosecution, the majority and concurring opinions identified two critical factors that distinguish the Alabama preliminary hearing from the probable cause determination required by the Fourth Amendment. First, under Alabama law the function of the preliminary hearing was to determine whether the evidence justified charging the suspect with an offense A finding of no probable cause could mean that he would not be tried at all. The Fourth Amendment probable cause determination is addressed only to pretrial custody. To be sure, pretrial custody may affect to some extent the defendant's ability to assist in preparation of his defense, but this does not present the high probability of substantial harm identified as controlling in Wade and Coleman. Second, Alabama allowed the suspect to confront and cross-examine prosecution witnesses at the preliminary hearing. The Court noted that the suspect's defense on the merits could be compromised if he had no legal assistance for exploring or preserving the witnesses' testimony. This consideration does not apply when the prosecution is not required to produce witnesses for cross-examination.' 420 U.S. 119, 95 S.Ct. 866, 43 L.Ed.2d 68, 70.

It is thus obvious that Coleman is still the law, and that, as to proceedings of an adversary nature such as Alabama used and Georgia uses, the commitment hearing is a critical stage in the criminal justice scheme for which counsel must be appointed for the indigent defendant.

3. From the facts before us in this case it appears highly likely that Hightower's defense could have been significantly prejudiced. Not only did he remain illegally imprisoned without counsel for an extended period; not only may he have suffered at the hearing itself from lack of a lawyer to cross examine witnesses and produce evidence, and thereafter because of lack of a transcript, but it seems undisputed that two eyewitnesses have in fact vanished who, had immediate investigation tracked, would certainly have been of service to one side or the other.

4. This court first held in Mollins v. State, 122 Ga.App. 865, 179 S.E.2d 111, that under Coleman the defendant was entitled to a hearing at the trial level to determine whether his rights had been prejudiced by lack of counsel. Thereafter, in Dismuke v. State, 127 Ga.App. 835, 195 S.E.2d 259, where a motion for appointed counsel at the preliminary hearing was overruled, this court reversed and remanded with direction to quash the indictment, set aside the verdict, and grant a new commitment hearing. Finally, in State v. Houston, 134 Ga.App. 36, 213 S.E.2d 139, the indictment was quashed on motion at the trial level for lack of counsel and this court affirmed. Houston was based on Sixth Amendment principles as enunciated in Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461. Johnson was dealing with counsel at trial, counsel having in fact been provided at the preliminary hearing. Gerstein v. Pugh, 420...