T. L. T. v. State, s. 49969
| Decision Date | 07 February 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,49970,Nos. 49969,s. 49969,2 |
| Citation | 212 S.E.2d 650,133 Ga.App. 895 |
| Parties | T.L.T. v. STATE of Georgia. G.L. v. STATE of Georgia |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
George M. Stembridge, Jr., Milledgeville, for appellants.
Joseph H. Briley, Dist. Atty., Donald W. Huskins, Asst. Dist. Atty., Milledgeville, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
In these independent appeals by two juveniles arising out of a consolidated trial our court is called upon to determine the extent to which principles of criminal law jurisprudence are to be applied to cases in the juvenile courts of our state.
Each of these 15-year-old boys was charged as being 'delinquent' in having participated in an incident which arose out of a break-in of an unoccupied cabin on Lake Sinclair from which household goods approximating $200 were removed. Although these two did not actually take part in the unlawful entry they were present when the act was committed. Individual petitions were filed in the juvenile court seeking to have each declared a delinquent. As to each appellant the pertinent portion of the allegations read that 'On October 4, 1973, at approximately 5:30 p.m., said youth was an accessory to the delinquent acts of breaking and entering and theft by taking' at the specified residence and that 'said youths had full knowledge that the delinquent acts were taking place, and, although said youth did not take part in the actual breaking and entering and theft by taking, he did, with full knowledge, assist in the attempts to sell the property.' An itemized list of the stolen property was recited but without stating market values either as to item or in gross. The petition further stated that
Court appointed defense counsel in fulfillment of his duties to his assigned clients attacked this petition by filing nineteen separate motions to dismiss. All were overruled by the circuit superior court judge acting as judge of the juvenile court of the county.
At the adjudicatory hearing four witnesses testified, the youngsters exercising their right to remain silent. Those witnesses were an accomplice of the appellants, the owner of the house which was broken into, the father of another accomplice, and the court's juvenile worker. Both youths were ruled delinquent.
The trial judge next proceeded with an in camera investigation concerning background, family conditions, and similar matters to assist him in reaching his decision for the subsequently scheduled dispositional trial. The attorney representing the delinquents participated in this investigational phase. The dispositional hearing was then postponed for two weeks to enable the court worker to ascertain the possibility of placing the youngsters with other members of the family. This was because the court's inquiry had developed the adolescents were already on probation in the juvenile court for other offenses and that the family environment for each boy was such that removal from their homes appeared to be the best hope for achieving the Juvenile Court Code's goal of rehabilitation.
At the dispositional hearing the court was informed that other members of the family were unable or unwilling to accept the responsibility. The court thereupon entered an order 'committing each youth to the Georgia Department of Human Resources for care, supervision and planning.' (R. 19). The instant appeals containing twelve enumerations of error followed.
1. We undertake first todeal with those enumerations based upon the nineteen separate motions filed by diligent counsel for the juveniles seeking dismissal of the petitions. All of these attacks were based upon technical criminal law doctrines. Some of these concerned omissions such as failure to plead market values of the goods, name of owner, legal address of location and similar matters of specificity. Others were such as are essential to the validity of a criminal indictment based upon violation of a criminal statute.
Our opinion is that in the instant case the petition is sufficient. It meets the requirements of In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 33, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527, and D.P. v. State of Ga., 129 Ga.App. 680, 200 S.E.2d 499. These authorities make clear that the petition 'must set forth the alleged misconduct with particularity.' But it is our opinion that this requirement is satisfied when the petition supplies definite details concerning delinquency even if it does not use the technical terminology of an indictment.
Although the petition does not have to be drafted with the exactitude of a criminal accusation, it must satisfy 'due process.' To meet this constitutional requirement the language must pass two tests: (1) it must contain sufficient factual details to inform the juvenile of the nature of the offense; and (2) it must provide data adequate to enable the accused to prepare his defense.
We recognize that the Act defines a delinquent act as one 'designated a crime by the laws of Georgia.' Code Ann. § 24A-401(e). Nevertheless it is clear from the entire statute that the General Assembly sought to treat matters of juvenile delinquency as a class of conduct separate and distinct from conventional criminality. The language which this court used in K.M.S. v. State of Ga., 129 Ga.App. 683, 200 S.E.2d 916, is applicable to the instant appeals. There at p. 684, 200 S.E.2d at p. 918 our court explained thusly: 'The juvenile court is a civil court, not a criminal court, and an adjudication of delinquency is not a conviction of a crime. Code Ann. § 24A-2401 (Ga.L.1971, pp. 709, 736). The juvenile court cannot find anyone guilty of a crime. However, the juvenile court might well find that any act which is designated a crime under Georgia law is a delinquent act when committed by a juvenile. In order to do this, it is not necessary that the juvenile be 'considered or found guilty of a crime."
Accordingly, we find no merit in any of the enumerations attacking the overruling of the nineteen motions to dismiss.
2. We next consider those enumerations which require a determination of the applicability to juvenile court trials of a specific criminal law principle. The one presented here is that dealing with the proof required to corroborate the testimony of an accomplice. In order to sustain a conviction of an adult based upon the testimony of an accomplice, two elements must be proven: (1) corroborating facts or circumstances must be shown to connect the defendant to the crime or lead to the inference that he is guilty and (2) such corroboration must be independent of the accomplice's testimony. West v. State, 232 Ga. 861, 864(2), 209 S.E.2d 195; Quaid v. State,132...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
S.L.H., In Interest of
...matters of juvenile delinquency as a class of conduct separate and distinct from conventional criminality." T.L.T. v. State of Ga., 133 Ga.App. 895, 897(1), 212 S.E.2d 650 (1975). However, as this court acknowledged in that case, "From [the Juvenile Court Code] and the decisions we conclude......
-
In re Anthony W.
...to an inference of his or her guilt, and such corroboration must be independent of the accomplice's testimony. T.L.T. v. State, 133 Ga.App. 895, 212 S.E.2d 650, 653 (1975) (citing West v. State, 232 Ga. 861, 209 S.E.2d 195 (1974); Quaid v. State, 132 Ga.App. 478, 208 S.E.2d 336 (1974)). In ......
-
E., In re
...principles which had been developed through the common law and which were necessary to obtain a fair trial. (T.L.T. v. State (1975), 133 Ga.App. 895, 212 S.E.2d 650, 654.) The court found the accomplice corroboration rule to be one of these Other state courts have not based their decisions ......
-
In re Christopher B.
...it is required to restore confidence in naturally suspect accomplice testimony, thereby confirming its truth]; T.L.T. v. State (1975) 133 Ga.App. 895, 212 S.E.2d 650, 654-655 [rule necessary to ensure accused minor has fair trial]; Smith v. State (Okla.Cr.App.1974) 525 P.2d 1251, 1253-1254 ......
-
Georgia's Juvenile Code: New Law for the New Year
...must allege facts with sufficient particularity to meet the due process requirements of the United States Constitution. T.L.T. v. State, 133 Ga. App. 895, 212 S.E.2d 650, 653 (1975). [6] In re T.F., 314 Ga. App. 606, 724 S.E.2d 892 (2012). [7] Commonly known as the seven deadly sins, SB 440......