State v. Green
Decision Date | 11 March 2015 |
Docket Number | Nos. A14A2294,A14A2296.,s. A14A2294 |
Citation | 331 Ga.App. 107,769 S.E.2d 804 |
Parties | The STATE v. GREEN. The State v. Green. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Smith Nall Wilson, Asst. Dist. Atty., Albany, Gregory W. Edwards, Dist. Atty., for Appellant.
James C. Bonner Jr., Athens, Robert Robinson McLendon IV, Blakely, Jimmonique R. S. Rodgers, Atlanta, Randall P. Sharp, Kevin C. Armstrong, for Appellees.
The State appeals from the trial court's orders granting the motions by Carl Green and Quintavis Green (“the Greens”) to suppress evidence obtained as the result of an illegal stop without articulable suspicion (“the orders on the motions to suppress”). The State also appeals from the trial court's orders dismissing 14 counts of the indictment against the Greens on account of the State's failure to preserve exculpatory evidence (“the dismissal orders”).1 The Greens have moved to dismiss the State's appeals of the dismissal orders for lack of jurisdiction. Because the State failed to secure certificates of immediate review under the version of OCGA § 5–7–2 applicable to this indictment, we dismiss the appeals from those orders. And because our dismissals resolve the counts upon which the trial court granted the motions to suppress, we also dismiss the State's appeals of the orders on the motions to suppress as moot.
1. The trial court entered the dismissal orders based upon the State's failure to preserve exculpatory evidence, finding that the State destroyed evidence in bad faith and that no alternative means of recovering that evidence existed. As a result, it dismissed 14 counts of the indictment. The Greens have moved to dismiss the State's appeals from these orders on the ground that this court lacks jurisdiction under OCGA § 5–7–2, because the State failed to obtain a certificate of immediate review.
The Greens were arrested on September 11, 2011 and indicted as part of a 116–count indictment naming 32 defendants. Both Greens were jointly charged in seven counts with hijacking a motor vehicle, armed robbery, aggravated assault, and four counts of “Violation of Street Gang Terrorism and Prevention Act” (“gang activity”). Quintavis Green was individually charged with one additional count of gang activity and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony; Carl Green was individually charged with three additional counts of gang activity, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and two counts of carrying a weapon without a license.
The Greens moved to suppress statements and other evidence based on violation of the reciprocal discovery rules and to dismiss the indictment against them on due process and confrontation clause grounds. A hearing was held at which the investigating officers and the records custodian for the police department testified that the recorded interviews with the Greens and the man who was arrested with them had been destroyed. After the hearing, the trial court entered orders finding that the interviews were exculpatory and favorable to the Greens, that this was known to the investigators, and that they failed to preserve the interviews in violation of department policy. It further concluded that the State acted in bad faith in failing to preserve the interviews, that the destroyed evidence was exculpatory, and that there was no reasonable alternative means to recover it. It therefore dismissed the indictment as it pertained to the Greens.2 The State did not obtain certificates of immediate review, but filed direct appeals “from the trial court's September 13, 2013, orders granting the Defendant's motions to suppress and dismiss.”
OCGA § 5–7–1(a)(1) now provides that the State may appeal “[f]rom an order, decision, or judgment setting aside or dismissing any indictment, accusation, or petition alleging that a child has committed a delinquent act or any count thereof.”3 But at the time of the acts for which the Greens were indicted, OCGA § 5–7–2 provided in its entirety:
As the Greens observe, our Supreme Court has addressed the question of our jurisdiction under OCGA § 5–7–2 in State v. Outen, 289 Ga. 579, 714 S.E.2d 581 (2011). There, the trial court granted a plea in bar as to one count of a two-count indictment. The State appealed, and this court affirmed the plea in bar, but our Supreme Court reversed, observing:
The ability of the State to appeal in a criminal case is governed by OCGA §§ 5–7–1 and 5–7–2. In OCGA § 5–7–1(a), the General Assembly has set forth only a limited right of appeal for the State in criminal cases. If the State attempts an appeal outside the ambit of OCGA § 5–7–1(a), the appellate courts do not have jurisdiction to entertain it.
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Id. at 580, 714 S.E.2d 581. The court further noted:
200 Ga.App. 609, 611(1), 409 S.E.2d 60 (1991). By analogy, the dismissal of fewer than all the counts of an indictment, even if it disposes of all counts...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rampersad v. Plantation At Bay Creek Homeowners Ass'n, Inc.
...of no benefit" to them. Inserection v. City of Marietta , 278 Ga. 170, 171 (1), 598 S.E.2d 452 (2004) ; see also State v. Green , 331 Ga. App. 107, 111, 769 S.E.2d 804 (2015). That is ordinarily the result when a party appeals to prevent foreclosure, but the foreclosure sale is completed be......
-
Rampersad v. The Plantation at Bay Creek Homeowners Ass'n
......Georgia's Article VI. courts are vested with "[t]he judicial power of the. . 5. . state." Ga. Const. Art. VI, Sec. I, Par. I. As. traditionally understood, that power allows courts to decide. cases: "live disputes" between ... Inserection v. City of Marietta, 278 Ga. 170, 171. (1) (598 S.E.2d 452) (2004); see also State v. Green, 331 Ga.App. 107, 111 (769 S.E.2d 804) (2015). That is ordinarily the result when a party appeals to prevent. foreclosure, but the ......
-
Kennedy v. Najarian Capital, LLC (In re Kennedy)
...... dismissed. On December 23, 2019, Najarian initiated. dispossessory proceedings against Debtor in state court. Debtor's First Bankruptcy Case was reinstated on December. 30, 2019, and the dispossessory proceedings were placed on. hold. ... against a particular defendant, is not "final" for. purposes of appeal. State v. Green , 331 Ga.App. 107,. 111 (2015). The court may nevertheless direct the. . 15 . . entry of a final judgment as to one or ......
- Haynes v. State