M. J. W. v. State

• Decision Date: 18 November 1974
• Docket Number: No. 1,No. 49673,49673,1
• Citation: 133 Ga.App. 350,210 S.E.2d 842
• Parties: M.J.W. v. STATE of Georgia
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 842

210 S.E.2d 842

133 Ga.App. 350

M.J.W. v. STATE of Georgia.

No. 49673.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 1.

Nov. 18, 1974.

Joseph M. Winter, Decatur, for appellant.

Kathryn Anne Workman, Sol., Decatur, for appellee.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

CLARK, Judge.

Does the imposition of a requirement that a juvenile delinquent contribute free labor to the Parks and Recreation Department amount to involuntary servitude in violation of his constitutional rights? Is the imposition of such requirement similar to a monetary fine which is prohibited? These interesting questions are presented for determination.

1. Before considering these queries we must first dispose of those enumerations contending error in the ruling by the juvenile court judge that appellant was guilty of committing criminal trespass.

The evidence was in direct conflict. The state's eye-witness testified he saw appellant strike and throw a match into a school restroom trash can which contained dry paper and which consequently burst into Flame. This witness said he did not see appellant use the match to light a cigarette. This was contradicted by the appellant who testified he used the match to light a cigarette, extinguished it before tossing it into the trash container and had no intention of starting a fire. The school's assistant principal testified the damage caused school property was less than $25.

Although appellant argues there was no evidence of the requisite intent to damage property as required by Code Ann. § 26-1503(a), the evidence was sufficient to show a mens rea. 'A person will not be presumed to act with criminal intention, but the trier of facts may find such intention upon consideration of the words, conduct, demeanor, motive, and all other circumstances connected with the act for which the accused is prosecuted.' Code Ann. § 26-605. Sufficient evidence exists here to support a finding that appellant had committed the offense. 'It is settled law that one is presumed to intend the necessary and legitimate consequences of that which he knowingly does, and that the intention with which an act is done is peculiarly a question for a jury.' Cole v. State, 118 Ga.App. 228, 163 S.E.2d 250. The fact finder here is the juvenile court judge who has determined the intention from his observation of the witnesses and their testimony. We will not interfere with his decision in this case. 'Conflicts in evidence being for the decision of the triors of fact, where issues of fact are in conflict, this court passes only on the sufficiency and not on the weight of the evidence. (Cit.)' Allen v. State, 110 Ga.App. 293, 294, 138 S.E.2d 329.

2. Having found no error in the court's ruling on delinquency we turn to a consideration of appellant's attacks upon the validity of the punishment. As a condition to the offender being placed on probation for one year, he was required to 'contribute 100 hours to Parks and Recreation Department of DeKalb County.' (R. 13). Appellant's able attorney argues this condition to be invalid for two reasons. These are: (1) the court in effect was placing a fine upon the offender contrary to the ruling of E.P. v. State of Ga., 130 Ga.App. 512, 203 S.E.2d 757 that no statutory authority exists for imposing a monetary fine on a minor adjudged to be delinquent; and (2) this would constitute involuntary servitude in violation of the juvenile's constitutional rights.

We hold that neither attack has merit in the light of the provisions of our Juvenile Court Code and the nature of probation. The permeating premise of our statute is that juvenile offenders can be rehabilitated and transformed into productive citizens by a system specially designed to achieve those ends. One of the methods provided in that statute is probation. Code Ann. § 24A-2303. In P.R. v. State of Ga., 133 Ga.App. 346, 210 S.E.2d 839 we made an exhaustive examination into this subject of probation conditions and concluded that a requirement of restitution was permissible because it was not in the nature of a fine. The reasoning in that case applies here in two respects. The first is that designation of work of a public purpose for destruction of public property is akin to restitution and does not resemble a monetary penalty. Secondly, useful services for the public good are in the pattern of probation, which is a specialized judicial tool and is helpful towards achieving the statute's pervading purpose of producing a good adult citizen. As the trial judge stated: 'This is specific action designed to foster in him an understanding that he's got some responsibilities and what it takes to create something as opposed to going around destroying things.' (T. 28). It is constructive rather than punitive. It comes within the statutory mandate that juvenile court judges are to make such disposition of a delinquent child as is 'best suited to his treatment, rehabilitation, and welfare.' Code Ann. § 24A-2302.

Nor does this condition amount to prohibited involuntary servitude. In Loeb v. Jennings, 133 Ga. 796, 67 S.E. 101, aff'd 219 U.S. 582, 31 S.Ct. 469, 55 L.Ed. 345, Justice Joseph Henry Lumpkin ¹ wrote an opinion holding that a violator of a municipal ordinance could be required to labor on the streets or other public works of a city and this would be neither involuntary servitude nor cruel or unusual punishment. His ruling was based on the constitutional exclusion of 'punishment for crime.' Even though juvenile court proceedings are not criminal proceedings (Robinson v. State, 227 Ga. 140, 179 S.E.2d 248; Huff v. Walker, 125 Ga.App. 251, 187...