State v. Battise
| Decision Date | 24 January 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 71475,71475 |
| Citation | 177 Ga.App. 583,340 S.E.2d 240 |
| Parties | STATE of Georgia v. BATTISE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Spencer Lawton, Jr., Dist. Atty., David T. Lock, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellant.
Roy L. Allen, II, Savannah, for appellee.
The state appeals from a denial of its libel for condemnation by the trial court. On February 7, 1985, police officer James H. Hieronymus of the Chatham County Metro Drug Squad, observed Willie Battise, Jr., sell a "nickel" bag of a substance thought to be marijuana. Hieronymus met with a confidential informant and used him as a decoy. He searched the decoy for drugs and money and then gave him a $5 bill with which to purchase marijuana. He saw the decoy approach Battise and speak to him. Battise went to the passenger side of a '76 Buick and pulled out a coin envelope from inside of the car and gave it to the decoy. The decoy paid Battise some money. Battise was arrested by the drug squad, consisting of six or seven police officers. The packet purchased by the decoy contained marijuana. Officer Hieronymus testified: "We checked the defendant, searched the defendant, found $131 in cash" and confiscated it. The $5 bill, with the same serial number as that given to the decoy, was found in the money taken from Battise. The car was searched and 16 coin envelopes containing marijuana were found under the passenger's seat in the front of the car. Captain W.R. Freeman signed a letter sent to the district attorney on February 14, 1985, requesting condemnation of the confiscated money. The district attorney's office called Hieronymous to their office on February 20 and he signed an additional condemnation letter.
The state filed a libel for condemnation of the $131 found on Battise. His answer denied the property was "subject to foreclosure pursuant to OCGA § 16-13-49." The trial court agreed and denied condemnation on the basis that "the report made to the District Attorney was by someone other than the sheriff, drug agent, or law enforcement officer seizing the same." The state brings this appeal. Held:
Our code requires that when property is seized for condemnation that "the sheriff, drug agent, or law enforcement officer seizing the same shall report the fact of seizure, within ten days thereof, to the district attorney of the judicial circuit having jurisdiction in the county where the seizure was made." OCGA § 16-13-49(e). The Georgia code also gives guidance that "[a] substantial compliance with any statutory requirement, especially on the part of public officers, shall be deemed and held sufficient, and no proceeding shall be declared void for want of such compliance, unless expressly so provided by law." OCGA § 1-3-1(c). There is no express provision in OCGA § 16-13-49 providing for want of validity because of non-compliance with any provision.
On a similar question, the Supreme Court held: "Where a statute directs the doing of a thing in a certain time, without any negative words restraining the doing of it afterwards, generally the provision as to time is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thebaut v. Georgia Bd. of Dentistry, No. A98A1130
...9. (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Jordan v. State, 223 Ga.App. 176, 182(2), 477 S.E.2d 583 (1996); State of Ga. v. Battise, 177 Ga.App. 583, 584, 340 S.E.2d 240 (1986); Lang v. State, 168 Ga.App. 693, 696(4), 310 S.E.2d 276 (1983); Hardison v. Fayssoux, 168 Ga.App. 398, 400, 309 S.E.2......
-
Health Horizons v. STATE FARM MUT. AUTO.
...compliance with the statutory requirements. O'Neal v. Spencer, 203 Ga. 588(2), 47 S.E.2d 646 (1948); State of Ga. v. Battise, 177 Ga. App. 583, 584, 340 S.E.2d 240 (1986). Further, in Ga. L.1988, pp. 1070, 1225-1226, § 1, the General Assembly changed the language of former OCGA § 14-2-1421(......
- Chapman v. State, 71130
-
AAA Bonding Co. v. State
...provision to be a condition precedent to forfeiture, this should have been expressed within the statute. See State of Ga. v. Battise, 177 Ga.App. 583, 340 S.E.2d 240 (1986). We conclude that the superior court clerk substantially complied with the statutory direction by sending the notice w......