Moody v. State
Decision Date | 02 October 1984 |
Docket Number | No. 41144,41144 |
Citation | 253 Ga. 456,320 S.E.2d 545 |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Parties | MOODY et al. v. The STATE. |
R.B. Donaldson, Jr., Sims, Donaldson, Metz & Zeigler, Savannah, for Alton Vance Moody et al.
Harry D. Dixon, Jr., Dist. Atty., Rebecca L. Littleton, Asst. Dist. Atty., Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen. Waycross, for State.
This is an appeal by 59 defendants who were indicted in Bacon County for violating the dog fighting statute (OCGA 16-12-37). The trial court overruled a motion to quash and strike the indictment on the grounds that the law is unconstitutional. We granted an interlocutory appeal from the denial of the motion and now affirm.
Most of appellants' arguments have been decided adversely to them in Hargrove v. State, 253 Ga. 450, 321 S.E.2d 104 (1984). However, in this pre-trial appeal appellants also raise points of overbreadth of the statute and lack of intent in the statute.
It is contended that the statute is overbroad in that it fails to delineate between conduct that is permissible and impermissible and has a coercive effect. In their discussion of this issue, appellants do not point to what constitutionally protected activity is threatened by the law but contend that the law itself sets no standard for adjudication of guilt. Linkers v. New York, 333 U.S. 507, 68 S.Ct. 665, 92 L.Ed. 840 (1948). They argue that one could be convicted under the statute by merely being present, regardless of whether he had any power to prevent the event or any intent to participate in it, and that one who negligently allowed a dog to roam which resulted in a dog fight could be guilty under the statute.
We have already held that the statute requires knowing and consensual involvement in dogfighting. Hargrove, supra. Furthermore, to be guilty of a crime requires an intention to commit the prohibited act and this principle will be used by the courts in statutory interpretation. Price v. State, 253 Ga. 250, 319 S.E.2d 849 (Ga.1984). The present statute thus requires an intent to engage in dogfighting for sport or gaming purposes.
Appellants argue that since different versions of dogfighting bills included the term "spectators" and that the present law is silent on this matter, the legislature never intended those who were "merely present" to be prosecuted.
It is clear that the legislature intended to outlaw dogfighting and set a mandatory punishment. Because of the nature of the activity, conduct other than actually...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lámar v. State, S04P0328.
...to silence by defendant who introduces expert psychiatric testimony in support of insanity defense). See generally Moody v. State, 253 Ga. 456, 320 S.E.2d 545 (1984) (statute not overbroad that infringes upon no constitutionally-protected Judgment reversed. All the Justices concur. 1. Neith......
-
State v. Young, 66581
...be present at such a place as a spectator. Id. at 48. These two elements are not present in section 578.050. See Moody v. State, 253 Ga. 456, 320 S.E.2d 545 (1984); Hargrove v. State, 253 Ga. 450, 321 S.E.2d 104 (1984); State v. Kaneakua, 61 Hawaii 136, 597 P.2d 590 (1979). Cf. Illinois Gam......
-
Flakes v. State
...requirement in OCGA § 16-5-70 (b) ; however, the cases he relies on for this proposition are distinguishable. In Moody v. State , 253 Ga. 456, 320 S.E.2d 545 (1984), the Supreme Court of Georgia, in upholding the validity of the dogfighting statute effective at the time, acknowledged that a......
-
Lamar v. State, S04P0328 (GA 6/28/2004), S04P0328
...to silence by defendant who introduces expert psychiatric testimony in support of insanity defense). See generally Moody v. State, 253 Ga. 456 (320 SE2d 545) (1984) (statute not overbroad that infringes upon no constitutionally-protected Judgment reversed. All the Justices concur. 1. Neithe......
-
Crimes and Offenses General Provisions: Amend Part 1 of Article 2 of Chapter 12 of Title 16 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, Relating to Gambling Offenses, So as to Change Certain Provisions Relating to Dogfighting; Prohibit Dogfighting and Related Conduct; Provide for Punishments; Define a Term; Provide for Applicability; Amend Title 4 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, Relating to Animals, So as to Change Certain Provisions Relating to Definitions Relative to Chapter 8 of Said Title; Change Certain Provisions Relating to Caring for an Impounded Animal; Change Certain Provisions Relating Failure to Respond, Right to Hearing, Care, and Crime Exception; Change Certain Provisions Relating to Filing a Report Regarding Animal Cruelty and Immunity; Provide for Related Matters; to Provide an Effective Date; Repeal Conflicting Laws; and for Other Purposes
...inter alia, Georgia's anti-dogfighting law is not unconstitutionally vague and does not violate equal protection); Moody v. State, 320 S.E.2d 545 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984). 26. See HB 301, as introduced, 2007 Ga. Gen. Assem. 27. See Georgia General Assembly, HB 301, Bill Tracking, http://www.legi......