J.C., In Interest of

Decision Date08 October 1982
Docket NumberNo. 64346,64346
Citation163 Ga.App. 822,296 S.E.2d 117
PartiesIn the Interest of J.C.
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

Richard T. Taylor, Dublin, for appellant.

William T. McBroom, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dublin, for appellee.

SHULMAN, Presiding Judge.

Appellant, age 13, was charged in juvenile court with motor vehicle theft. It appears that appellant took a brief "joy ride" in a truck, during which the vehicle was damaged. The juvenile court found appellant delinquent and ordered restitution to the owner of the truck in the total amount of $1,492 to be paid in installments of $10 weekly. Appellant challenges the propriety of the award of restitution on the ground that the record contains no evidence from which the court could have made a proper determination of the value of the damage to the victim's truck. Appellant also challenges, on hearsay grounds, the court's admission into evidence of a repair estimate and, on competency grounds, the testimony of the owner of the vehicle relating to its value.

1. We agree that the court should have excluded the repair estimate. The document was offered through the testimony of the victim, who was not the preparer of the document. Insofar as this witness was concerned, the document and its contents were pure hearsay. Code Ann. § 38-301. Both the document and testimony about its contents were objectionable, and the court erred in admitting the document into evidence and allowing the witness to testify as to its contents. Sabo v. Futch, 226 Ga. 352(3), 175 S.E.2d 16.

2. Exclusion of the repair estimate and testimony about its contents leaves the record devoid of any evidence concerning the value of the damage to the vehicle in question. The victim, who was the only witness to address the value question, stated that he had made no independent evaluation of the damage. His testimony provided no competent evidence on the issue concerning the value of the damage to the vehicle in question. Code Ann. § 38-1709; Hoard v. Wiley, 113 Ga.App. 328, 147 S.E.2d 782.

3. "Code Ann. § 27-2711(7) provides that a probationer shall not be required to make restitution as a condition of probation 'if the amount is in dispute unless the same has been adjudicated.' " Johnson v. State, 156 Ga.App. 511, 274 S.E.2d 669. Although § 27-2711 deals "with adult offenders and has no relationship to the juvenile courts whose powers are delineated in the Juvenile Court Code [Code Ann. § 27-2717]" (P.R. v. State, 133 Ga.App. 346, 349, 210 S.E.2d 839), a juvenile court cannot order restitution as a condition precedent to probation without making "a judicial determination as to the amount of the loss or damage" (id.) similar to that required under § 27-2711. Otherwise the infant would be subject to an arbitrary determination of the amount of damage, which could lead to the unjust result of allowing the "aggrieved individual to profit out of a sad situation." Id. Since the record in the present case contains no relevant or competent evidence on the value of damage to the subject vehicle, the court did not make a proper judicial determination of the amount of the loss.

Even though the court erred...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Ivory v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • October 26, 1998
    ...nothing to impeach Agent Oliver about the time of defendant's sale of crack cocaine earlier that same day. See In the Interest of J.C., 163 Ga.App. 822(2), 296 S.E.2d 117. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding this inadmissible 4. Defendant's fourth enumeration contends ......
  • Bradshaw v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • October 8, 1982
  • Britt v. State, A98A1179.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • June 4, 1998
    ...214 Ga.App. 29, 32(2), 447 S.E.2d 83 (1994); Goodson v. State, 213 Ga.App. 283, 284, 444 S.E.2d 603 (1994); In the Interest of J. C., 163 Ga.App. 822, 823, 296 S.E.2d 117 (1982). Without this document, the State failed to present any evidence as to the dollar amount of food stamps allegedly......
  • State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hudson
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • November 14, 1994
    ...the check into evidence, any testimony concerning its contents was inadmissible hearsay. See OCGA § 24-3-1; In the Interest of J.C., 163 Ga.App. 822(1), 296 S.E.2d 117 (1982). 4. State Farm asserts the court erred in granting Hudson's motion for a directed verdict due to insufficient eviden......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT