FOURTH D I VI SI ON

DI L LA RD, P. J.

, RI C KM A N, P. J.

, and BROWN, J.

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.

https ://w w w

. ga a ppe a ls .us /r ule s

D E A D LIN E S A R E N O LO N G E R TO LLE D IN T

H I S

C O U R T. A LL FILIN G S M U ST B E S U B M I TTE D WITH IN

TH E TIM E S S E T B Y

O U R C O U R T R U LE S

.

Febr uar y 8, 2021



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A2 0 A2 01 8 . SCHM EELK v

. THE STATE.

B R O W N , J u d g e.

A ju ry fo u n d Greg o ry

Sch m eel k g u il t y o f fam i l y -v i o l en ce ag g rav at ed as s au l t

an d reck l es s co n d uct

. 1 Sch m eel k ap p eal s h i s co n v i c t i o n s a n d t h e d en ial o f h i s

am en d ed m o t i on fo r n ew t ri al

, co n t en d i n g t hat i n su ffi ci en t ev i d en ce s up p o rt s hi s

co n vi ct i o n fo r fam i l y -v i o l en ce ag g rav at ed as s a u l t a n d t h at t h e t ri al co u rt fai l ed to

ex erci s e i t s d i s cret io n t o act as t h e “ th i rt een th ju ro r.” W e co n cl u d e t h a t t h e St at e

p res en t ed s u ffi ci en t ev i d en ce to s up p o rt t h e co n v i c t i o n b u t n o net h el es s v acat e t h e

1 Sch m eel k w as ch arg ed wi t h t wo co un t s o f fam i l y -v i o l en ce ag grav at ed as s au l t

b u t was co n v ict ed o f t h e l es s er i n cl u d ed o ffen se o f reck l es s co n d u ct as t o on e co u nt

(Co un t 2 ). Th e j u ry fo un d hi m n o t g u i l t y o f t erro ri s t i c t h r eat s

, an d th e St at e n o l l e

p ro s s ed o n e co u nt o f cru el t y t o ch il d ren i n t h e t h i rd d eg ree.t ri al co u rt ’ s o rd er d en y i ng Sch m eel k ’ s m o t i o n fo r n ew t ri al an d rem an d t h e cas e s o

t h at t h e co urt m ay

ex erci s e i t s d i s cret i o n as t h e “ t h irt een t h ju ro r.”

V i ewed i n t he l i gh t m os t fav o rab l e t o th e ju ry ’ s v erd i ct

, s ee Ja cks o n v

.

Vi r g i n i a

, 4 4 3 U. S. 3 0 7 (9 9 SCt 2 7 8 1, 6 1 LE2 d 5 6 0 ) (1 9 7 9 ), t he ev i d en ce sh o ws t h at

Sch m eel k l i v ed in a h o u s e wi t h h i s w i f e

, t h ei r y o u n g d au gh t er, an d t h e wi fe’ s 2 3

-

y ear-o ld d au g h t e r a t t h e t im e o f t h e in ci den t. On t h e n i g ht o f M arch 2 5

, 2 0 1 6,

Sch m eel k ’ s s t ep d au g h t er ret u rn ed h o m e fro m ch urch an d wen t t o h er ro o m i n t h e

d o wn s t ai rs b as em en t o f t h e h o m e t o eat d i nn er. Sh e h eard l o u d n o i s es u p s t ai rs , an d

h er m o t h er cam e do wn t o t h e b as em en t to t el l h er t h at Sch m eel k was d ru nk an d t h at

s h e was “ t ry in g t o co n vi n ce h i m t o

. . . p as s o u t .” Th e d au g h ter w al k ed p art i al l y u p

t h e st ai rs an d s aw Sch m eel k o n t h e co u ch i n hi s un d erwear. Sch m eel k wal k ed t o h i s

b ed ro o m wi t h t h e m o t h er i n t o w, an d t h e d au g ht er h eard t h e m o th e r t e l l S c h m eel k,

“ N o

. . . n o t t o n i g h t. It ’ s n o t fu n n y

. No

. . . .” Th e dau g h t er wen t to hel p h er m o t h e r

an d s aw Sch m eel k g rab bi ng h er b y t h e arm s to t ry t o l ead h er i n t o th e b ed ro o m

. Th e

d au gh t er i n s t ru ct ed Sch m eel k t o l et g o o f h er m om a n d g o t o b ed

. A s Sch m eel k

wal k ed to ward t h e d au g ht er, sh e p u l led o u t h er cel l p h o n e an d t h reat en ed t o cal l t h e

p o l i ce. In res p on s e, h e ret u rn ed t o t h e b ed ro o m

.

2As t he d au g h t er wal k ed back d o wn t h e s t ai rs

, s h e heard t h e “ s o u n d of

. . . a g u n

b ei n g rack ed ,” an d h er m o t h er s ay i n g “ ru n

, ru n

, ru n

. ” Th e d au g h t er r a n d o w n t h e

s t ai rs p as t t h e l ock ed fro nt d o o r, l o ck ed t h e b as em en t d o o r b eh i n d h er, ex i t ed t h e

b as em en t d o or i nt o t h e g arag e, an d l o ck ed th at do o r b eh i n d h er. Sh e th en o p en ed t h e

g arag e d o o r, ran d o w n t h e d ri v eway b et ween t h e p ark ed cars

, an d cro uch ed b eh i n d

Sch m eel k ’ s car. At t h i s p o i n t, t h e d au g h t e r h e a r d g u n s h o t s an d fl ed t o a t ree i n t h e

y ard

. As s h e h i d b eh i n d t h e t ree, s h e s aw Sch m eel k reach t h e en d o f t h e d ri v eway

,

h o l d i n g th e g un

, an d l o o k u p an d d o wn t h e s t reet

. Th e m o t h er t o l d Sch m eel k

, “ Yo u ’ re

n o t go i ng t o fi n d h er, Greg

. St o p l o o k in g

. S h e ’s a l r ead y g o n e.” Th e d au g h t er ran

d o wn t h e s treet t o a n ei g h b o r’ s h o u s e, s cream i ng fo r h el p , an d cal l ed t h e p o l i ce.

Th e m o t h er’ s t es t i m on y co rro b o rat ed t h e dau g h t e r ’s v ers i o n o f ev en t s

. Sh e

t es t i fi ed t h at Sch m eel k cam e o u t o f t h ei r b ed ro o m wi t h a g u n, wen t d o w n t h e s t ai rs

p as t t h e fro n t d oo r an d t o t h e dau g h t er’ s ro om wh ere h e k i ck e d i n t h e l ock ed d o o r.

Th e m o t h er fo ll o wed h i m

, g rab b i n g h i s s h i rt an d t el l i n g h er d au g h ter t o r u n

. Wh en

t h ey reach ed t h e g arag e, s h e h eard m ul t i p l e s h ot s fi red

. Sch m eel k th en t u rn ed t h e g u n

o n t h e m o t h er an d t ol d h er, “ If y o u d o n ’ t l et g o o f m y sh i rt

, I’ l l s h o ot y o u

, t o o .”

Sch m eel k t h en wal k ed t o t h e en d o f t h e d ri v eway wi t h t h e g u n

.

3A n ei g h b o r h eard g u n s h o t s an d a wo m an s cream i n g a n d w en t t o h el p

. He

en co un t ered Sch m eel k wi t h a g u n i n hi s dri v eway an d as k ed h i m t o pu t d o wn t h e g u n.

Sch m eel k co m

p l i ed

, an d th e m an co l l ect ed th e g u n b efo re po l i c e a r r i v ed

. Th e

res p o n d in g o ffi cer t es t i f

i e d t h at sh e o b s erv ed s ev eral b ul l et h o l es i n t h e fro n t o f

Sch m eel k ’ s s il v er J et t a i n th e d ri v eway

, al o n g wi t h a b ul l et h o le o ff t o t h e s id e o f t h e

car i n s om e p i n e s t raw.

At t ri al

, Sch m eel k t es t i fi ed i n h i s o wn d efen se. He ad m i t t ed h av i n g “ a co u p l e

o f d ri n k s ” o n t o p of m ed i cat i o n h e t o o k aft er h av i n g a b ack p ro ced u re earl i er i n t h e

d ay

. Acco rd i n g t o Sch m eel k

, h e was “ feel in g

. . . d es p on d en t an d un d er ap p reci at ed

an d d i s res p ect ed an d was o v erwh el m ed wi t h wo rk

, ” d eci d ed t h at h e was n o l o n g er

g o i n g t o w o rk

, an d acco rd i n g ly s h o t t h e en g i n e i n h i s car. He d en i ed k n o wi n g t h at h i s

s t ep d au g h t er was o u t s i d e wh en h e w as s h o o ti n g

, an d d en ied t h reat en i n g o r

i n t en t i o n al l y p oi n t i n g t h e gu n at t h e wi fe. He al s o d en ied b reak i n g d o wn t he b as em en t

d o o r, cl ai m i n g h i s an d t h e m o t her’ s “ co m b i n ed b o dy

wei g h t b u rs t t h e d o or o p en

. ”

1

. Sch m eel k co nt en d s t hat i n su ffi ci en t ev i d en c e s u p p ort s h is co n v i ct i o n fo r

fam i l y -v io l en ce ag g rav at ed as s au l t

. Sp eci fi cal l y

, h e co n t en d s t h at n o ev id en ce was

p res en t ed fro m wh i ch a ju ry co u l d i n fer t hat h e had an y m o t i ve to h arm o r i n ju re h i s

s t ep d au g h t er o r k n o wi n g l y i n t en d ed t o m ak e an as sau l t u p o n h er. W e d i s ag ree.

4Pert i n en t l y

, a p ers o n co m m i t s ag g ra v at ed as sau l t wh en h e as s au l ts “ [w] i t h a

d ead ly weap o n o r wi th an y o b ject

, d ev i ce, o r i ns t ru m en t wh i ch

, wh en u s ed

o ffen s i v el y ag ai n s t a pers o n

, i s l i k el y to o r act u al l y d o e s r e s u l t i n s eri o us b o d i l y

i n ju ry [.] ” OCG A § 1 6

- 5

- 2 1 (a) (2 ). See al s o OCGA § 1 6 -5 -2 1 (i ) (ex p lai n i n g t h e

s en t en ci n g en h an cem en t i f t h e ag g rav at ed as s au l t i s co m m i t t ed bet ween

, i n t er al i a,

s t ep p aren t s an d s t ep ch il d ren ). It i s wel l es t ab l i s hed “ t h at ag g rav at ed as s au l t h as t wo

el em en t s : (1 ) co m

m i ss io n o f a s i m

p l e as s au l t as defi ned by OCGA § 1 6 -5 -2 0 (a); an d

(2 ) t h e p r e s e n ce o f o n e o f t h ree s t at u t o ry ag grav at o rs s et fo rt h i n OCGA § 1 6 -5 -2 1

(a).” (Ci t at i o n an d p u n ct uat i o n o m i t t ed .) Jo h n s o n v. S t a t e

, 3 4 8 Ga. Ap p

. 5 4 0

, 5 4 4 (1 )

(8 2 3 SE2 d 8 53 ) (2 0 1 9 ). “ A p ers o n co m m i t s t h e o ffen se o f s im

p l e as s au l t wh en h e o r

s h e ei t h er: (1 ) At t em

p ts t o co m

m i t a vi o len t i n

ju ry t o th e pers o n o f a n o t h er; o r (2 )

Co m m i t s a n act wh ich p l aces an o t h er i n reas o n ab l e ap preh en s i o n o f i m m ed i at el y

recei v i ng a v i ol en t i n

ju ry

. ” OCGA § 1 6 -5 -2 0 (a).

Here, Co u n t 1 o f t h e i n d i ct m en t ch arg ed Sch m eel k wi t h fam i l y -v i o l e n ce

ag g rav at ed as s au l t i n t h at Sch m eel k “ d i d k n o wi n g l y m ak e an as s au lt u p o n t h e p ers o n

o f [h i s s t ep d au g h t er] wi th a d ead l y weap o n

, t o wi t : a C o l t han dg u n b y fi ri n g s ai d

h an dg u n at [t h e s t e p d a u g h t e r ] m u l t i p l e t im es

. . . .” T h u s

, t h e i n di ct m en t was b ro ad

en o ug h t o au t h o ri ze Sch m eel k ’ s co n v i ct i o n of ag grav at ed as s au lt b as ed o n ei t h er

5OCGA § 1 6 -5 -2 0 (a) (1 ) o r (a) (2 ). See To u ch s t o n e v. S ta t e , 3 1 9 Ga. Ap p . 4 7 7 , 4 7 9

(1 ) (7 3 5 SE2 d 80 5 ) (2 0 12 ) (i nd i ct m en t ch arg i n g t he d efen dan t wi t h “ ‘ k n o wi n g l y

m ak i n g an as s au l t u p o n [t h e v i ct i m ] , a p eace o ffi cer en g ag ed i n t h e p erfo rm an ce o f

h er o ffi ci al d u t i es

, wi t h a d ead ly weap o n, t o wi t: a .3 5 7 cal i b er rev o l v er’ ” was b ro ad

en o ug h t o au t h o ri ze t h e d efen d an t ’s ag g rav at ed as s au l t co n v i ct i o n b as ed on ei t h er

t y p e o f s i m p l e as s au l t ). See al s o Fo r d -Ca lh o u n v. S t a t e

, 3 27 Ga. Ap p

. 8 3 5, 8 3 9 (1 )

(a) (i i ), n.1 4 (7 6 1 SE2 d 3 8 8 ) (2 0 1 4 ) (“ an in d i ct m en t fo r a g g r a v a t e d as s au l t p u t s a

d efen d an t o n n o t i ce t hat h e m ay b e co n v i ct ed fo r ag g rav at ed as s au lt i f h e co m m i t t ed

a s i m p l e as s au l t i n ei t her m an n er co n t ai ned i n t he s im p l e as s a u l t s t a t u t e, s o l o n g as

t h e t ri al co u rt ch arg es an d th e St at e p ro ves t h at he d i d s o by t h e al l eg ed ag grav at i n g

as p ect o f t h e as s au l t ”) (ci t at i on an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ). 2

Th e t es t i m on y o f t h e v i ct i m an d t he m o t h er es t ab l i s h ed t hat aft e r t he v i ct i m

co n fro n ted Sch m eel k an d t h reat en ed t o cal l t h e p o l i ce, Sch m eel k o b t ai ned a l o ad ed

g u n fr o m h i s b ed ro o m

, fo l l owed t h e v i ct i m d o wn t h e s t ai rs p as t t h e fro n t do o r, an d

b u s t ed d o wn t h e b as em en t d o o r t o t h e v i ct i m ’ s ro o m b efo re fi ri n g t he g u n at t h e car

b eh in d wh i ch t he v i ct i m w a s h i d i n g

. Th e ev i d en ce al s o sh o wed th at Sch m eel k

2 In i t s ch arg e to t he ju ry

, t h e t ri al co u rt d efi n ed bo t h m et h od s o f co m m i t t i n g

s i m p l e as s au l t

.

6t h reat en ed t o s h o o t t h e m o t h er “ t o o ” i f s h e d i d n ot g et o u t of h i s way

, an d th at aft er

s h o o ti n g h i s car, Sch m eel k wal k ed t o t h e en d o f t he d ri v eway w i t h t he g u n t o l o o k u p

a n d d o wn t h e ro ad

. Th e v i ct i m al s o t es t i fi ed t hat sh e kn ew Sch m eel k was s h o o t i n g

a t h e r, w as afrai d

, an d “ r[a] n fo r [h er] l i fe.” W e co n cl u d e t h at t h is w as s u ffi c i e n t

ev i d en ce t o s u st ai n Sch m eel k ’ s ag g rav at ed as s au l t co nv i ct i o n b as ed u po n ei t h er fo rm

o f s i m p l e as s au l t . See Ho wa r d

v. S t a t e

, 2 8 8 Ga. 7 4 1

, 7 4 2 (1 ) (7 0 7 SE2 d 8 0 ) (2 0 1 1 )

(“ [t ] es ti m o n y t h at t he v i ct i m s ran fro m t h e g u nfi re i s s u ffi ci en t ev i d en ce t h at

Ap p el l an t s p l aced t h em i n reas o n a b l e a p preh en s i o n of i m m ed i at el y recei v i n g a

v i o l en t i n ju ry ”); Lo ma x v. S t at e , 3 1 9 Ga. Ap p

. 6 9 3

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

(v i ct im ’ s t es ti m o n y t h at defen d an t h ad a gu n an d t h at wh en v ict i m t u rn ed an d ran h e

h eard a g u n s h o t an d d i s co vered t h at h e h ad b een s h o t s uffi ci en t t o su s tai n d efen d an t ’ s

ag g rav at ed as s au l t co n v i ct i o n). See al s o Ch a s e v. S t a t e

, 2 7 7 Ga. 6 3 6

, 6 3 7 -6 3 8 (1 )

(5 9 2 SE2 d 6 5 6 ) (2 0 0 4 ) (ev i den ce t h at d efen d an t co u l d “ ‘ k eep t ab s ’ ” on wh ere v i ct i m

was i n t h e t o w n h o m e b ecau s e o f h o w s o un d trav el ed “ co n s t i t u t ed su ffi ci en t ev i d en ce

t o au t ho ri ze t h e ju ry

t o co n cl ud e t h at [d efen d an t ] k n ew wh ere t h e v ict i m was i n t h e

s m al l k i t ch en an d i n t en t i o nal l y fi red h i s g u n at t he v i ct im t h ro ug h t h e u p s t ai rs

fl oo ri n g ju st ab o v e t h e s i t e s h e was o ccu p y i n g i n t h e k i t ch en

, i n t en d i n g t o i n fl i ct

v i o l en t i n ju ry u p o n t h e v i ct i m ”). Al t h o u gh Sch m eel k t es t i fi ed t h at h e d i d n o t k n o w

7t h e s t ep d au g h ter w as p res en t wh en h e s h o t t h e g u n

, th e ju ry was au t h o r i z e d t o

d i s b el i ev e h i s t es t i m o ny

. See Jo r d a n v. S ta t e

, 3 4 4 Ga. Ap p

. 2 6 7

, 2 7 1 (3 ) (8 1 0 SE2 d

1 5 8 ) (2 0 1 8 ). “ In d eed

, i t i s t h e ju ry ’ s ro l e t o res o lv e co n f l i c t s i n t h e ev i den ce an d

d et erm i n e th e cred ib i l i t y o f wi t n es ses

, an d th e p res en ce o f s uch co n fl i ct s d o es n ot

ren d er t h e ev i d en ce i n s u ffi ci en t

. ” (Ci t at i o n an d p u n ct u at i on o m i t ted .) Ga t h er s v.

S t a t e , 3 5 5 Ga. Ap p

. 7 6 1 , 7 6 3 (1 ) (8 4 4 SE2 d 8 8 2 ) (2 0 20 ).

2 . Sch m eel k n ex t co n t en d s t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred b y fai l i n g t o co n s i d er h i s

am en d ed m o t i o n fo r n ew t ri al o n t h e “ g en eral g ro u n d s.” Sp eci fi cal l y

, h e co n t en d s t h at

n o t h i n g i n t h e co u rt ’ s o rd er refl ect s t h at i t ev al u at ed t h e cred ib i l i t y o f t h e wi t n es s es

an d w ei g h ed t h e ev i d en ce in d eci d in g wh et h er t o ex erci s e i t s d i s cret i o n t o g ran t a n ew

t ri al i n it s ro l e as t he “ t h i rt een t h ju ro r.” See OCGA § § 5 -5 -2 0 an d 5 -5 -2 1

. W e ag ree.

Here, Sch m eel k e x p l i ci tl y arg u ed i n h i s m o ti o n fo r n ew t ri al an d am en d ed

m o ti o n t h at t h e ju ry ’ s v erd i ct was co n t rary t o t h e p ri nci p l es o f ju s t i ce an d eq u i t y an d

was s t ro n g l y a g a i n s t t h e wei g h t o f t h e ev i den ce. Th e ord er d en y i ng Sch m eel k ’ s

am en d ed m o t i o n fo r n ew t ri al p ert in en t l y s t at es as fo l l o ws :

In h i s Am en d ed M ot io n fo r New Tri al . . . Defen d an t arg u es t h at t h ere

was i n s u ffi ci en t ev i den ce o f h i s i n t e n t t o cau s e i n ju ry an d th at th e

v erd ict wen t ag ai ns t t h e wei gh t o f t h e ev i den ce.

8Th e Co u rt fi n d s t h at t h ere was s u ffi ci en t ev i den ce b efo re t h e ju ry

t o fi nd i n ten t t o co m

m i t t h e act s ch arg ed

. Acco rd i n g l y

, i t i s h ereb y

O R D E R E D t h at D efen d an t ’ s Am en ded M o t i o n fo r New Tri al i s

DENIED.

W e pres u m e, “ i n t h e ab sen c e o f a f f i r m at i v e ev i den ce t o t h e co n t rary

, t h at t h e t ri al

co u rt p ro p erl y ex erc i s e d i t s di s cret i o n pu rs u an t t o OCGA § § 5 -5 -2 0 an d 5 -5 -2 1.”

Ho l m es v. S t a t e

, 3 0 6 Ga. 5 2 4 , 5 2 8 (2 ) (8 3 2 SE2 d 3 9 2 ) (2 0 1 9 ). “ H o wev er, wh en t h e

reco rd refl ect s t h at t h e t r i a l c o u rt rev iewed t he m o t io n fo r n ew t ri al o n l y fo r l eg al

s u ffi ci en cy o f th e ev i d en ce, t h e t ri al co u rt h as fai l ed t o ex erci se s u ch d i s cret i o n .” Id

.

Acco rd Gr es h a m v. S t a t e , 3 5 4 Ga. Ap p

. 8 35

, 8 3 8 (1 ) (8 4 1 SE2 d 4 8 4 ) (2 0 2 0 ). Here,

as in Ho l mes

, as i d e fro m m en ti o n i n g t h at Sch m eel k m ad e t hi s arg um en t

, “ [t ] h e o rd er

m ad e n o referen ce to t h e g en eral g ro u n d s

, g av e n o i n di cat i on t h at t h e t ri al co u rt h ad

co n si d ered o r rewei g h ed t he ev i d en ce p res en t ed at t ri al

, an d d i d n o t s u gg es t t h at t h e

t ri al co u rt h ad ex erci sed i t s d i s cret i o n p u rs uan t t o OCGA § § 5-5 -2 0 an d 5 -5 -2 1 .” 3 0 6

Ga. at 5 2 8 (2 ). Co m

p are Pr ice v. S t a t e

, 30 5 Ga. 6 0 8

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

(“ wh en a t ri al co u rt en t ers an o rd er d en y i n g a m o t i o n fo r n ew t ri al an d

, wi th o u t m o re,

reci tes t h at t h e n ew t ri al i s refu s ed o r d en i ed

, th i s wi ll b e t ak en t o m ean t h at t h e ju d g e

h as in t he ex erci s e o f h i s di scret i o n ap p ro v ed t h e v erd i ct ”) (ci t at i on an d pu n ct u at i o n

o m it t ed ). Acco rd i ng l y

, we v acat e t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s ord er d en y i ng Sch m eel k ’ s am en d ed

9m o t i on fo r n ew t ri al an d rem an d t he cas e s o t h at t h e t ri al co urt m ay ex e r c i s e i t s

d i s cret i o n as t h e “ t h i rt een t h ju ro r” an d

, i n s o d o i ng

, rewei g h t h e ev i d en ce p res en t ed

at t ri al

. See G r es h a m

, 3 5 4 Ga. Ap p

. at 8 3 8 -8 40 (1 ) (wh ere t ri al co u rt n o t ed i n i t s

o rd er t h at d efen d an t as s ert ed t h e “ ‘ s t an d ard g ro u n d s ’ ” i n h i s m o ti o n fo r n ew t ri al

, b ut

n o t h i n g i n ord er i nd i cat ed t h at co u rt h ad perfo rm ed it s du t y t o ex erci s e i t s d i s cret i o n

as “ t h i rt een t h ju ro r,” o rd er m u s t b e v acat ed an d cas e rem an d ed f o r co urt t o ap p l y

p ro p er s t an d ard an d ex erci s e i t s d i s cret i o n ).

Ju d g men t va ca t ed a n d ca s e r ema n d ed wi t h d i r ect i o n

. Di ll a r d

, P. J., a n d

Ri ckma n , P. J., co n cu r

.

10