SECOND DI VI SI ON

M I LLER, P. J.

, A NDREWS and BROWN, JJ.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be ph y sic a l ly r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

http://w w w .ga a ppe a l s .us /r ule s

M ay 24, 2018



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 8 A0 00 6 . IN THE INTEREST OF M . C., A CHILD.

M I LLE R , Pres i d i n g J u d g e.

Th e W al t o n Co u n t y J u v en il e Co urt ad ju d i cat ed M

. C. d e l i n q u e n t fo r h av i n g

co m m i t t ed t h e o ffen s es o f ag g rav at ed as s au l t u p o n a p eace o ffi cer (OCGA § 1 6 -5 -2 1

(b ) (2 0 1 6 )), at tem

pt i n g t o el u de a p o l i ce o ffi cer (OCGA § 4 0 -6 -3 95 (a)), o bs t ru ct i o n

o f an o ffi cer (OCGA § 1 6-1 0 -2 4 (a) (2 0 1 6 )), an d reck l es s d ri v i n g (OCGA § 4 0 -6 -3 9 0

(a)). M

. C. ap p eal s fro m t h e d en i al o f h i s m o t i o n fo r n ew t ri al

, arg ui n g (1 ) t h at d u ri n g

cl o s i ng arg u m en t t h e S t a t e im p ro p erl y co m

m en t ed o n h i s as sert i o n o f h i s ri g h t to

rem ai n si l en t

, an d (2 ) t h e ev i d en ce was in s u ffi ci en t be c a u s e t h e St at e fai l ed to

es t ab l i s h v en u e. Fi rs t

, we fi n d n o rev ers i b le erro r on t he b as i s o f a v i o l at io n o f M

.

C.’ s co n s t i tu t i o n al ri gh t t o rem ai n s i l en t . W e d et erm i n e, h o wev er, t h at al t h o u g h t h e

ev i d en ce was s u ffi ci en t t o s u p p o rt v en u e fo r t h e ch arg e o f at t em p t i n g t o el u d e ap o l i ce o ffi cer, t h e St at e d i d n o t es t ab li s h v en ue as t o t h e rem ai n i n g o ffen s es fo r wh i ch

M

. C. was ad

ju d i cat ed d el i n q u en t

. Th erefo re, we affi rm i n part an d rev ers e i n p art

.

W h en rev iewi ng a c h al l en g e t o t h e s u ffi ci en cy o f t h e ev i d en ce, we

co n s t ru e t h e ev i den ce fav o rab l y t o t h e ju v en i l e co u rt ’ s ju d g m en t

. W e d o

n o t wei g h t h e ev i d en ce o r r e s o l ve i s s u es o f wi t n es s cred i b i l i t y , b u t

m erel y d et erm i n e wh et h er a rat io n al t ri er o f fact co u l d h av e fo u n d t hat

[M . C.] co m

m it t ed t h e act s ch arg ed i n t he d el i n q u en cy p et it i o n

.

(Ci t at i o n s om i t t ed .) In th e In t er es t o f M. S

. , 2 9 2 Ga. Ap p

. 1 2 7 (6 6 4 SE2 d 2 40 ) (2 0 0 8 ).

Vi ewed i n t h i s l i g h t

, t h e e v i d en ce s h o ws t h at wh i l e an o ffi cer w i t h t h e

Lo g an v i l l e Po l i ce Dep art m en t w as o n p at ro l

, h i s “ t ag read er” al ert ed h i m t o a p as s i n g

s t ol en v eh i cl e, d ri v en b y M

. C. Th e offi cer p urs u ed t h e v eh i cl e as i t accel erat ed an d

d ro v e t hro u g h a g ras s fi el d an d a p ark in g l ot

, an d t hen o n to Hi g h w ay 7 8

. Ad d i t i o n al

o ffi cers j o i ned t h e ch as e, d u ri n g wh i ch M

. C. was d ri v i ng at s p eed s o f u p t o 1 2 6 m il es

p er h o u r. Du ri ng t h e p u rs u i t

, wh i ch s p an n ed at l eas t s ix m i l es , M

. C. swerv ed an d

d ro v e d i rect l y t o war d t w o o f t h e p o l i ce cars

. Ev en tu al ly

, M. C. cras h ed i n to a t ree,

an d h e an d t h e o t h er ju v en il e i n t h e v eh icl e fl ed o n fo o t

. Offi cers ch as ed an d

ap p reh en d ed t h em at t h e s cen e, an d a g un was fo u n d i n t h e g l o v e co m p art m en t o f t h e

v eh icl e.

2Th e St at e fi l e d a d e l i n q u en cy p et i t i o n ag ai n s t M

. C., an d th e ju v en i l e co u rt

fo u n d th at he co m

m i t t ed t h e o ffen s es of ag g rav at ed as s au l t u p o n a peace o ffi cer (t wo

co u nt s ), at t em

p t i n g to el u d e a p o l ice o ffi cer, o b s t ru ct i o n o f an o ffi cer, an d reck l es s

d ri v i ng

. 1 M

. C. m o v ed fo r a n ew t ri al

, cl ai m i n g t h at d u ri ng cl o s i n g arg um en t t h e St at e

i m p ro p erl y co m

m en t ed o n h is s i l en ce, t h at t h e j u v en i l e co u rt wro n g fu l ly at t ach ed

s i gn i fi can ce t o h i s fai l ure t o tes t i fy

, an d th at t h e ev i d en ce was i n s u ffi ci en t t o s u p p o rt

t h e verd ict as t o al l co u n t s o f t h e p et it i o n. Th e ju ven i l e co u rt d en i ed t h e m o t i o n , an d

t h i s ap p eal fo l l o wed

.

1 . As h i s fi rs t en u m erat i o n o f erro r, M . C. arg u es t h at a p o rt i o n o f t h e St at e’ s

cl o s i ng arg u m en t co n s ti tu t ed an i m p ro p er co m

m en t o n h i s i n v o cat i o n o f h is ri g h t to

rem ai n s i l en t . W e d i s cern n o erro r o n t h e p art o f t h e ju v en i l e co u rt

.

A co m m en t u p o n a d efen d an t ’ s s i l en ce o r fai l u re t o co m e fo rward

i s far m ore p reju d i ci al t h an p ro b at i v e, an d t h erefo re wi l l n ot be al l o wed

. Nev ert h el es s , to rev ers e a co n v i c t i o n , th e ev i d en ce o f t h e d efen d an t ’ s

el ect i o n t o rem ai n s i l en t m u s t p o in t di rect l y at t he s ub s t an ce o f th e

d efen d an t ’ s d efen s e o r o t h erwi s e s u bs t an ti al l y p reju d i ce t h e d efen d an t

i n t h e ey es o f t he ju ry

.

1 M. C. w as al s o ch arg ed wi t h p o s s es s io n of a p i s to l o r rev o l v er b y a p er s o n

u n d er th e ag e o f 1 8 y ears (OCGA § 1 6 -1 1 -1 32 ), t heft b y recei v i ng s t o l e n p r o p ert y , (OCGA § 1 6 -8 -7 ), an d p o s s es si o n o f a fi rearm d u ri n g t h e co m m i s s i o n of a fel o ny (OCGA § 1 6 -1 1 -1 0 6 ). He was acq u i t t ed o f t h es e o ffen s es

.

3(Ci t at i o n s an d fo o t no t es o m i tt ed .) H a g g in s v. S t a t e , 2 77 Ga. A p p

. 7 4 2

, 7 47 (6 ) (6 2 7

SE2 d 4 4 8 ) (2 0 0 6 ). Fu rt h er, i n s o far as M . C.’ s s il en ce co u l d h av e b een co n s t ru ed as

ev i d en ce o f h i s gu i l t

, “ [i ] t i s p res u m ed t h at a t ri al ju d g e, wh en h e s i t s as t h e t ri er o f

fact

, co n s i d ered on l y l eg al ev i d en ce.” (Ci tat i o n s o m i tt ed .) P eek v. S t a t e , 23 4 Ga. Ap p.

7 3 1 , 7 3 2 (2 ) (5 0 7 SE2 d 5 53 ) (1 9 9 8 ).

Here, du ri n g cl o si n g arg u m en t

, t h e p ro s ecu t i n g at t o rn ey s t at ed

, “ [w] it h reg ard

t o t he v eh i cl e . .

. . W el l

, y o u ’ v e h eard t h e o ffi cers . . . . [M . C.] d i d n ’ t s ay an y t h i n g,

d i d n ’ t t al k t o t h e o ffi cers , d i dn ’ t g i ve an y s t at em en t.” Defen s e co un s el o b ject ed

, aft er

wh i ch t he p ro s ecu ti n g at t o rn ey wi t h d rew t h es e rem ark s , b u t t h en ad d ed

, “ [w] el l

, I can

g i v e t h e s t at em en t t h at h e d i d n ’ t g i v e h i s n am e. Al t h o u g h h e m ay n ot h av e g i v en t h e

s t at e m e n t o f t h e fact s o f t h e cas e, h e d i dn ’ t p ro v i d e a n am e, ad d res s , p aren t s ’

i n fo rm at i o n , n ot h i n g .”

A s s u m i n g wi t h o u t d eci d i n g t hat t h es e co m m en t s were im

p ro p er, w e o b s erv e

t h at t h ey were m ad e i n rel at i o n t o t h e ch arg e o f t h eft by recei v in g s to l en p ro pert y , an d

t h e t ri al co u rt acq u i tt ed M

. C. o f t h is o ffen se. See Du ma s v. S t at e , 2 1 6 Ga. Ap p

. 6 4 3,

6 4 4 (4 5 5 SE2 d 3 5 4 ) (1 9 9 5 ) (co n s i d eri ng t h e co n t ex t o f p ro s ecu t o r’ s arg um en t wh en

d et erm i n i n g “ t h e n at ural an d neces s ary i m p act of t h e s t at em en t”) (ci t at i on o m i t t ed ).

In d eed

, at t h e h eari n g o n t he m ot i o n fo r n ew t ri al

, th e ju v en il e co u rt n ot ed t h e co n t ex t

4o f t h e ch al len ged rem ark s , an d t h at i t h ad n ot fo u n d t h at M . C. co m m i t t ed t h e t h eft

.

Th erefo re, t h e ju v en i le co u rt ’ s ju d g m en t d o e s n o t su g ges t t h at i t co n s i dered an y

i m p ro p er arg u m en t fro m t he St at e i n v i o l at i o n o f M

. C.’ s co n s t i t u t i on al ri g h t t o

rem ai n s i l en t , an d rev ers al i s n o t warran ted o n t h es e g ro u n d s.

Rel at ed ly

, M

. C. co nt en d s t h at t h e j u v en i l e co u rt drew “ preju d ici al i n feren ces ”

fro m h i s fai l u re t o t es t i fy

. He i d en t i fi es th e ju ven i l e co u rt ’ s fo l l owi n g s t at em en t

, m ad e

aft er t h e cl o s e o f ev i de n ce an d b efo re ren d eri n g t h e v erd i ct : “ [M

. C.] d id n ’ t t es t i fy

b ecau s e h e d id n’ t h av e t o t es t i fy

, b ecau s e [t h e o t h er ju v en i l e] was cal l ed b y t h e St at e,

an d h e l ai d o u t , i n m

y o pi ni o n , t h e s t o ry

. . . .”

Al t h ou g h t h e ju v en i l e co u rt co m m en ted o n M

. C.’ s fai l u re t o t es t i fy

, t h e

t ran s cri p t o f t h e p ro ceed in g s b el ies M

. C.’ s su g ges t i o n t hat h e w as ad ju d i cat ed

d el i n q u en t o n t h i s b as i s

. Im m ed i at el y aft er s tat i n g t h at t he o t h er j u v en i l e h ad g i v en

an acco u n t o f t he ev en t s , t h e j u v en i l e co u rt referen ced t h at t es t i m o n y an d s t at ed t h at

i t h ad n o t fo u n d i t cred i b l e, p art i cu larl y g i v en t he vi deo o f t h e hi g h -s p eed ch as e t h at

t h e ju v en i l e co urt had v i ewed

. At t h e h eari n g o n t h e m o t i on fo r n ew t ri al

, t h e ju v en i l e

co u rt p ro v i d ed t h e fo ll o wi n g ex p l an at i o n fo r i t s rem ark s :

I w as n ’ t t al k i n g ab o u t t h e fact t h at

, wel l

, h e di d n ’ t tes t ify s o I t o o k t hat

i n t o co n s i d erat i o n. It w as ju s t t he fact t h at he d i d n ’ t h av e t o fro m a

5s t rat eg y p o i n t fro m t h e at t o rn ey ’ s p oi n t i n h is cas e, h e d o es n ’ t hav e t o

cal l h i m b ecau se t h e o t h er fel lo w t es t i fi ed fo r hi m

. Ag ai n , “ t h ere was n o ju ry t h at co u l d h av e b een i n fl u en ced by th e ju d g e’ s co m m en t s ,” an d

, we

p res um e t h at “ t he ju d g e, as t h e t ri er o f fact

, i s ab l e t o di s t i n g u i s h

b et ween co m

p et en t an d i n co m

p et en t ev id en ce an d co n s i d er o n l y t hat

ev i d en ce wh ich is ad m is s i b l e.” (Ci t at io n o m i t t ed .) Co r s in i v. S ta t e , 2 3 8

Ga. Ap p. 3 8 3

, 3 8 5 (2 ) (5 1 9 SE2 d 3 9) (1 9 99 ). Th erefo re, we co n cl u de

t h at th e reco rd d em o n s t rat es t h at t he j u v en i l e co u rt d i d n o t co n si der M

. C.’ s fai l u re t o t es t i fy as ev i d en ce of h i s g ui l t

. See i d

. (n o rev ers i b l e erro r

wh ere t h e t ri al ju d g e co m

m en t ed o n ap p el l an t ’ s fai l ure t o t es ti fy

, bu t d i d

s o i n ex p l ai n in g t h at t h e St at e’ s ev i d en ce was u n co n t rad i ct ed ); s ee al s o

Mo r el a n d v. S t a t e , 1 5 4 G a. Ap p

. 37 5

, 3 7 7 (2 ) (2 6 8 SE2 d 4 2 5) (1 9 8 0 )

(g i v en co n t ex t o f ju d g e’ s s t at em en t s , an d ab s en t an “ affi rm at iv e

s h o wi n g” t h a t t h e ju d g e fai led to ap p l y t he p ro p er st an d ard i n

d et erm i ni n g g u i l t

, t hi s Co u rt wo u l d n o t “ p res u m e t h e ju d g e’ s i nt en t i o nal

o r n eg l i g en t fai l u re t o u p h o l d ap pel l a n t ’ s co n s t i t u t i o nal ri g h ts i n th e

p erfo rm an ce o f h i s fu n ct i o n as t h e t ri er o f fact ”).

2

. N ex t

, M

. C. cl ai m s t hat t h e ev i d en ce was i n s uffi ci en t t o s u pp o rt t h e v erd i ct

as t o al l co u n t s b ecau se t he St at e fai l ed t o es t ab li s h v en u e i n W a l t o n Co un t y

. W e

co n cl u d e t h at t h e ev i d en ce of ven u e was s u ffi ci en t as t o t h e ch arg e o f at t em p t i n g to

el u d e a p o l i ce o ffi cer, b u t t h e ev i d en ce was i n s u ffi ci en t t o es tab l is h v en ue as t o t h e

rem ai n i n g o ffen s es fo r wh i ch M . C. was ad j u d icat ed d el in q u en t

.

6In a del in qu en cy p ro ceed i n g , “ [t ] h e s t an d ard o f rev iew o n ap p eal t o d et erm i n e

wh et h er v en u e was su ffi ci en tl y p ro v ed i s t h e s am e as an y o t h er su ffi ci en cy rev i ew

—

wh et h er, i n t h e l ig h t m o s t fav o rab l e t o t h e p ro secu t i o n , an y rat i o n al tri er o f fact co u ld

h av e fo u n d v en u e b ey o n d a reas o n ab l e d o u b t .” (Ci t at i o n s an d fo o t no t es o m i t t ed

. ) In

t h e In t er es t

o f S . W

. , 3 3 7 Ga. Ap p . 1 1 0 , 1 1 1 (1 ) (7 8 6 SE2 d 4 9 9 ) (2 0 16 ). 2

Th e o ffi cer wh o i ni t i at ed t h e ch as e t es t ifi ed t h at h e fi rs t o b s erv ed M

. C. wh i l e

s i tt i n g i n h i s p at ro l car o n Hi gh way 7 8

, an d h e t h en b eg an p u rs u i ng M

. C. i n an

at t em p t t o cat ch u p wi t h h i m

. T h e o ffi cer l a t e r t u r n e d o n h i s p at ro l car’ s l i g h t s an d

s i ren s on Hi g hway 7 8 i n W al t o n Co u n t y

. Th e ev i d en ce s h o ws t hat M

. C. d id n o t s t o p

t h e v eh i cl e i n res p on s e t o t h e l i g h t s an d s i ren s , an d t h erefo re, t h e ju v en i l e co u rt co u ld

h av e fo u n d v en u e p ro v en b ey o n d a reas o n ab l e d o u b t fo r t h e ch arg e of at t em p t i n g to

el u d e a po l i ce o ffi cer. Ma ck v. S t a t e , 2 8 3 G a

. A p p

. 1 7 2

, 1 7 3 (1 ) (6 4 1 SE2 D 1 9 4 )

2 M

. C. d i d no t ex p l i ci t l y rai s e a v en ue i s s u e i n t h e j u v en i l e co u rt

, ei t h er at t ri al

o r i n h is m o t i o n fo r n ew t ri al

. Nev ert h el es s , h e m ay rai s e i t i n t h e co n t ex t o f a

s u ffi ci en cy cl ai m o n ap p eal

. Le m b c k e v

. S t a t e , 2 77 G a. Ap p

. 1 1 0

, 1 1 2 (1 ) (b ) (6 2 5

S E2 d 5 0 5 ) (2 0 0 5 ); In t h e In t er es t o f J. B.

, 2 8 9 Ga. A p p

. 6 1 7

, 6 1 8 (6 5 8 SE2 d 1 9 4 ) (2 0 0 8) (“ W h en a ch arg i n g d o cu m en t al l eg es t h at ven u e i s p ro p er i n a cert ai n co u n t y ,

an d a defen dan t pl ead s n o t g u i l t y i n res p o n se to th at ch arg i n g d ocu m en t

, h e h as i rrefu t ab l y ch al l en g ed al l al l eg at i o n s co n t ai n ed t herei n, i n cl u d i n g th o s e p ert ai n i n g to

v en ue.”) (ci t at i o n o m i t t ed ).

7(2 0 0 7) (v en u e i n St ep h en s Co u n t y was p ro p erl y s h o w n b ecau s e “ o ffen s e o f el u d i n g

t h e o ffi cers wa s co m

p let e at t h e m o m en t [ap p el l an t ] refu s ed

. . . t o s t o p hi s v eh i cl e

d es p it e t he v i su al an d au d i b l e s i g nal s t o bri n g th e veh icl e t o a s to p .”) (ci t at i o n

o m it t ed ).

Hav i n g t h o ro u gh l y rev i ewed t h e reco rd

, h o w ev er, i n cl u d i n g t h e v i d eo fo o t ag e

o f t h e p o li ce ch as e, we can n o t s ay t h at t h e St at e p ro ved v en u e b ey o n d a reas o n ab l e

d o u b t fo r t h e ch arg es o f reck l es s d ri v i n g , ag g rav at ed as s au l t o n t h e two o ffi cers , an d

o b s t ru ct i on , as ch arg ed i n t he d el i n q u en cy p et i ti o n

.

Th e S t a t e c h arg ed M. C. wi t h reck l es s d ri v in g b y t rav el i n g at a h i g h rat e o f

s p eed an d di s reg ard i n g t raffi c co n t ro l s i g n al s

. 3 Th e ag g rav at ed as s au l t ch arg es were

p rem i s e d o n M

. C.’ s s werv i ng an d d ri v in g t o ward t wo o ffi cers

. Las t l y , t h e p et i t i o n

al l eg ed th at M

. C. ran aft er t h e c r a s h d es pi t e bei n g t o l d to s t o p

. Th e o ffi cer wh o

i n i t i at ed t h e ch as e t es t i fi ed t h at t h ere was a d i s t an ce of “ s i x o r s ev en ” m i les b et ween

h i s t u rn i n g o n h i s l i gh t s an d s iren s i n W al to n Co u n t y , an d M

. C.’ s ev en t ual car cras h.

3 Th e in v es t i g at i ng o ffi cer t es ti fi ed t h at wh en h e t u rn ed on h i s l i g h t s an d s i ren s i n W al t o n Co u n t y , t h e v eh i cl e wh i ch M

. C. was d ri v i n g was t rav el i n g at a “ v ery h i g h

rat e o f s p eed .” Nev ert h el es s, w e can n o t say t h at M

. C. was dri v i n g reck l es s l y at t h i s

p o i n t an d t h at acco rd i n g l y , v en u e was p ro ven fo r t h i s ch arg e b ecau s e t h e e v i d en ce

t h at M . C. d i s reg ard ed t raffi c co n tro l s i g n al s cam e l at er i n t h e St at e’ s cas e, t h ro u g h

t h e t es ti m o n y

o f an ot h er o ffi cer.

8Th u s, t he o ffen s es s et fo rt h ab o v e o c cu rred at v ari ou s p o i n ts al o n g t h i s s p an o f at

l eas t s i x m i l es , d u ri n g wh i ch t h e o ffi cers “ [l ] eft t h e ci t y l i m i t s .” Des pi t e e x t en s i v e

t es t i m o ny reg ard i ng th e s t reet s, h i g hway s an d i n ters e c t i o n s o n wh i ch al l o f t h es e

o ffen s es occu rred

, t h e St at e fai led t o el i ci t an y ev i d en ce t h at t hey o ccu rred i n W al t o n

Co u n t y

. 4 In t h e In t er es t o

f J. B.

, s u p ra, 2 8 9 Ga. Ap p

. at 6 1 8 -6 1 9 (s t reet ad dres s es an d

o t h er l ocat i o n s i n t h e reco rd i n s u ffi ci en t t o es t ab l i s h v en u e).

Ad d it i on al l y , we can n o t rel y o n t h e o ffi cers ’ em p l o y m en t as ad d i t i o n al

ev i d en ce reg ard i n g v en u e b ecau s e t he t es ti fy i n g o ffi cers were em p l o y ees o f t h e

Lo g an v i l l e Po l i ce Dep art m en t

, a n d t h e reco rd d o es no t s h o w t h at t h ei r j u ri s d i ct i o n

was co n fi n ed s o l el y to W al to n Co u n t y

. See Fr a s i er v. S t at e , 2 9 5 Ga. A p p

. 59 6

, 6 0 0

(3 ) (6 7 2 SE2 d 6 68 ) (2 0 0 9 ); Bel l v. S ta t e , 2 9 1 G a. Ap p

. 1 6 9

, 1 70 (2 ) (6 6 1 SE2 d 2 0 7 )

(2 0 0 8) (wh ere arres t was m ad e b y ci t y p ol i ce an d St at e fai l ed t o s ho w t h at ci t y was

l o cat ed en t i rel y w i t hi n t h e co u nt y wh ere tri al was h el d, “ ju ry was n o t au t h o ri zed to

fi nd t hat

, i n t h e p ro p er perfo rm an ce o f t h ei r du t i es , t h e o ffi cers m ad e t h e s t o p an d

arres t wi th i n t h e t erri t o ri al ju ri s d i ct i o n o f [t h e co u n t y ] ”).

4 Th e o n l y o t h er m en t i o n o f W al t o n Co u n t y i n t h e en ti re t ran s cri pt was m ad e

w h e n t h e p ro s ecu t i n g at t o rn ey fl eet in g l y as ked t h e ot h er ju v en i l e d u ri n g cro s s

ex a m i n at i o n wh et h er, at a cert ai n p o i n t i n t h e ch as e, M. C. reg ai n ed co n tro l o f t h e

v eh icl e an d d ro v e to wa r d W al t o n Co u n t y

.

9W e reco g n i ze th at u n d er OCGA § 1 7 -2 -2 (e), “ [i ] f a cri m e i s co m m i t t ed u p o n

an y

. . . v eh i cl e

. . . t rav el i n g w it h i n t h i s s tat e an d i t ca n n o t rea d i ly be d et er mi n ed in

wh i ch co u n t y t h e cri m e was co m m it t ed

, th e cri m e s h al l b e co n s i d ered as h av i n g b een

c o m m i t t ed i n an y co u n ty i n w h i ch t h e cri m e co u l d h av e b een co m m i t t ed t h ro u g h

wh i ch t h e

. . . v eh icl e

. . . h as t rav el ed .” (em p has i s s u p p l i ed ). Th i s s t at u t e, h o wev er,

“ ap p l i es o n l y wh en i t c a n n o t read i l y b e d et erm i n ed i n wh i ch co un t y t he cri m e was

co m m i t t ed .” Th o mp s o n v. Br o wn , 2 8 8 G a. 85 5

, 85 6 (7 0 8 SE2 d 2 7 0 ) (2 0 1 1 ). H ere, t h e

wi t n es s es ex p l i ci t ly t es t i fi ed as t o t h e l o cat i o n o f t he reck l es s d ri v i n g , t h e ag g rav at ed

as s au l t s , an d t h e o b s t ru ct i o n ; t h e St at e co u l d ha ve b ut s i m p l y fai l ed t o el i ci t th at t h o s e

l o cat io n s were wi t h i n W al t o n C o u n t y

. Th u s , t h i s s t at u t e i s i n ap p l i cab l e h ere. Id

.

(s t at u t e i n ap p l i c a b l e s i n ce lo cat i o n o f cri m e co u l d b e as cert ai ned ); Ro g er s v. S t a t e ,

2 9 8 Ga. Ap p . 8 9 5 , 8 9 9 (3 ) (c) (6 8 1 SE2 d 6 93 ) (2 0 0 9 ) (s am e).

Th e St at e’ s co n t en t io ns o n t hi s i s s u e of v en u e are al l u n av ai l i n g

. Fi rs t

, t h e St at e

arg u es t hat d as h cam era v id eo fo o t ag e was en t ered i n t o ev i d en ce an d v iewed b y t h e

ju v en i l e co u rt

, an d t h i s wo u l d h av e al l owed t h e ju v en i le co urt t o o b serv e w h ere t h e

act s o ccu rred

. T h e reco rd d o es n o t s h o w t h at t h e ju ven i l e co u rt t o o k ju d i ci al n o t i ce

o f an y “ g eo g rap h ical fact s ,” s o as t o s u p p or t a fi n di n g o f v en u e, “ [n ] o r are we, as a

10rev i ewi n g co u rt

, free t o res ort t o ju d i ci al n o t i ce t o l eg i t i m i ze a ju d g m en t .” Br a d l ey

v. S t a t e , 2 3 8 Ga. Ap p . 4 9 0 (5 1 9 SE2 d 2 6 1 ) (1 9 9 9 ).

Th e St at e’ s at t em

p t t o an al o g i ze t h i s cas e t o W a r d v. S t at e , 2 7 0 Ga. Ap p

. 4 2 7

(2 0 0 4) i s s i m il a r l y un p ers uas iv e. In W a rd

, wh i ch al so i nv o l v ed a p o li ce ch as e,

o ffi cers ex p res s ly t es t ifi ed t h at t h e p u rs u i t o f th e s u s p ect b o t h b eg an an d en d ed in

Fu l t o n Co u n t y

. Id

. at 4 2 8. Th ere i s n o su ch ev i d en ce h e r e e s t a b l i sh i n g t h at t h e

en t i ret y o f th e p o l i ce ch as e was wi th i n t he co n fi nes o f W al to n Co u nt y , an d t h e St at e’ s

arg u m en t i s es p eci al l y p ro b lem at i c b ecau s e t h i s ch as e s p an n ed at l eas t si x m i l es

. Ki n g

v. S t a t e , 2 7 1 Ga. Ap p

. 3 84

, 3 8 7 (1 ) (6 0 9 SE2 d 72 5 ) (2 0 05 ) (fact t h at ap pel l an t was

arres t ed i n Ben Hi l l Co un t y , 2 0 0 y ard s awa y fro m t h e cri m e s cen e, d i d n o t p ro v e

v en ue i n t h at co un t y ); co m p are Br ews t er v. St a te

, 3 0 0 Ga. Ap p

. 1 4 3

, 14 4 (6 8 4 SE2 d

3 0 9 ) (2 00 9) ( e vi d en ce o f v en u e s u ffi ci en t wh ere offi cer t es t i fi ed t h at h e was

p at ro l l i n g i n Newt o n Co u nt y wh en h e cam e i n t o co n t act wi t h ap p el l an t s ; i d en t i fi ed

t h e p u rs u i t ro u t e o n a m ap o f Newt o n Co u n t y ; an d t es ti fi ed t h at no p o rt i o n o f t h e

ro u t e fel l o u t si d e t h e m ap ).

11Al s o b as el es s i s th e St at e’ s co n t en t i o n t h at M

. C. n ev er p res en t ed ev i d en ce t h at

an y p art o f t he i nci d en t o ccu rred i n a co u n t y o t h er t han W al t o n Co un t y

. Th at i s n ot

M

. C.’ s b u rd en

. “ [T] h e St at e’ s b u rd en n ev er s h i ft s t o t h e d efen d an t t o di s p ro v e v en ue,

as i t i s ax i o m at i c t h at t h e ev i d en t i ary b u rd en in a cri m i n al p ro s ecu ti o n i s u p o n t h e

St at e t o p ro v e ev ery m at eri al al l eg at i o n o f t h e i n d i ct m en t an d ev ery es s en t ial el em en t

o f t h e cri m e ch arg ed b ey on d a reas o n ab l e do u bt .” (Ci t at i o n om i t t ed .) Do wn s v. S t a t e ,

2 5 7 Ga. Ap p

. 6 9 6

, 6 9 7 -6 9 8 (1 ) (5 7 2 SE2 d 54 ) (2 00 2 ). Acco rd i n g l y , we co n cl u d e t h at

t h e St at e fai l ed t o es t ab li sh v en u e wi t h reg ard s t o t h e two co u n t s o f ag grav at ed as s au l t

u p o n a p eace o ffi cer, reck l es s d ri v i n g , an d o b s t ru ct i o n o f an offi cer, an d we m u s t

rev ers e t h e d el i n q uen cy ad ju d i cat i o n as t o t h es e o ffen s es

. In t he In t er es t o f D. D.

, 2 8 7

Ga. Ap p . 5 1 2 , 5 1 5 (2 ) (a) - (b ) (6 5 1 SE2 d 8 17 ) (2 0 0 7).

Nev ert h el es s , “ t h e [S] t at e m ay ret ry [M

. C.] wi t h o ut v i ol at i n g t h e Do u b l e

J eo p ard y Cl au se [i f] t h ere w a s o t h e rwi se s u ffi ci en t ev i d en ce at t ri al t o s u p p o rt t h e

d efen d a n t ’ s del i n q u en cy ad ju d i cat i o n fo r t h e cri m es ch arg ed .” (Ci t at i on s o m i t t ed .)

In t h e In t er es t

o f D. D.

, s u p ra, 2 8 7 Ga. Ap p. at 5 1 2 , 5 15 (2 ) (b ).

W e co n cl u de th at t h ere was ot h erwi s e s u ffi ci en t ev i d en ce o n each o f t h e fo u r

co u nt s

. Th e ev i d en ce t h at M

. C. d i s reg ard ed two red traffi c l ig h t s wh i le d ri v i n g at 1 2 6

m i l es p er h o ur, wh i ch was wel l ab o ve t h e s p eed l i m i t

, was s uffi ci en t t o p ro ve reck l es s

12d ri v i ng b ey o n d a reas o n ab l e d o u b t

. Br o wn v. S ta t e , 25 9 G a. Ap p. 81 9

, 8 2 1 (5 7 8 SE2 d

5 1 6 ) (2 0 0 3 ). Li k ewi s e, t h e t es t i m on y t hat M. C. s werv ed an d d ro v e t oward t h e t wo

o ffi cers at a s p eed o f at l eas t 8 0 m i l es per h o u r, s o cl os e t o t h e o ffi cers t h at t h ey

b raced fo r i m

p act

, au t h o ri zed t h e ju v en i l e co urt to co n cl u d e th at M

. C. co m m i t t ed an

ag g rav at ed as s au l t u p o n b o t h o ffi cers

. Dyer v. S t a t e , 2 61 Ga. Ap p

. 28 9

, 2 90 (1 ) (5 8 5

SE2 d 8 1 ) (2 0 0 3 ). Las t l y , th e ev i d en ce t hat M

. C. fl ed o n fo o t aft er t h e cras h an d d id

n o t h eed t he cal l s t o s t o p s u ffi ci en t l y s up p o rt ed a fi n d i ng o f o bs t ru ct i o n. In t h e

In t er es t o f E. C.

, 2 9 2 Ga. Ap p

. 7 9 8

, 8 0 0 -8 0 1 (6 6 5 SE2 d 8 9 6 ) (2 0 0 8 ). Th u s , t h e

Do u b l e Jeo p ard y Cl au s e d o es n o t b ar ret ri al

. In t h e In t er es t o f D. D.

, s u p ra, 2 8 7 Ga.

Ap p . at 5 1 5 (2 ) (b ).

In s u m m ary , we affi rm M

. C.’ s ad ju d i cat i o n o f d el in q u en cy fo r at tem p t i n g to

el u d e a p o l i ce o ffi cer an d rev ers e h i s ad ju d i cat i o n s o f d el i nq u en cy fo r fai l u re t o p ro v e

v en ue o n t h e rem ai n i n g ch arg es wh i ch are n o t b arred fro m ret ri al b y d ou b l e jeo p ard y

.

Ju d g men t a f f i rmed in p ar t a n d r ever

s ed in p a r t

. An d

r ews a nd Br o wn

, JJ.,

co n cu r

.

13