In th e S u p re m e Co u rt o f Ge o rg ia

De c id e d : Oc to b e r 5 , 2 0 1 5

S 1 5 A1 0 4 5 . HARRELL v . THE S TATE.

HINES , P re sid in g Ju stic e

.

Liste r W

. Ha rre ll a

p p e a ls fro m h is c o n v ic tio n s a n d se n t e n c e s fo r

e n d e a vo rin g to in tim id a te a c o u rt o ffic e r a n d c ru e lty to a n im a ls. Fo r th e re a so n s

th a t fo llo w, we re ve rse

.

Co n stru e d to su p p o rt th e v e rd ic ts, th e e v id e n c e sh o we d th a t Ha rre ll wa s

c h a rg e d with v io la tin g th e du tie s o f a la n d lo rd a n d

, a fte r h e fa ile d to a p p e a r fo r

a c o u rt he a rin g in c o n n e c tio n with th a t c ha rg e , a b e n c h warra n t wa s issu e d fo r

h is a rre st. On Ap ril 2 9

, 2 0 13

, Ha rre ll p la c e d m e ssa g e s o n th e in te rn e t site

F a c e b oo k th a t re fe rre d to Do d g e Co u n ty S u p e rio r Co u rt Cle rk Rh e tt Wa lk e r a n d

De p u ty Ch ie f Cle rk Ta m my Gra h a m

. On e p o s t th re a te ne d th a t if th e b e n c h

wa rra n t wa s n o t lifte d, Ha rre ll wo u ld p o st a n in te rn e t lin k to a v id e o wh ic h h e

c la im e d sh o we d Gra h a m e n g a g in g in se x u a l a c tiv ity with Ha rre ll a n d two o th e r

m e n ; n o s u c h v i d e o e x iste d

. Ha rre ll a lso p o ste d a c la im th a t Gra h a m h a d lie d

to th e c o u rt re g a rd in g wh e th e r Ha rre ll ha d b e e n se rv e d with n o tic e o f a h e a rin gre g a rd in g th e a c c u sa tio n th a t h e v io la te d th e d u tie s o f a la n d lo rd ; it w a s h is

fa ilu re to a

p p e a r a t th is h e a rin g wh ic h se rv e d a s th e b a sis fo r th e b e n c h wa rra n t

b e in g issu e d fo r h im

. In a n o th e r p o st, H a rre ll liste d W a l k er ’ s p e rso n a l c e ll

p h o ne n u m

b e r a n d u rg e d re a d e rs to c a ll Wa lk e r to te ll h im to le a v e Ha rre ll a lo n e

wh ile h e wa s “ o n th e r u n

, ” a n d th u s n o t ru in Ha rre ll’s “ c h ic k e n fo o t e a tin g

v ic to ry .” Ha rre ll a lso in itia te d te le p h o n e c o m m u n ic a tio n with Wa lk e r in a n

a tte m p t to p e rsu a d e h im to lift th e b e n c h wa rra n t, sa y in g th a t if h e d id n o t d o so

b y a c e rta in da te

, Ha rre ll wo u ld “ tu rn [Wa lk e r’s] w o rld u p sid e d o wn

, ” a n d th a t

“ y o u k no w wh a t will h a

pp e n o n F a c e b o o k .”

At tria l, e v id e n c e w a s a lso p re se n te d th a t on Ap ril 1 5

, 2 0 1 3

, Ha rre ll le ft

two v o ic e m a il m e ssa g e s in te n d e d fo r S h irle y We b b

, Ha rre ll’s fo rm e r g irlfrie n d

a n d th e m o th e r o f two o f Ha rre ll’s c h ild re n

. In o n e m e ssa g e

, Ha rre ll sta te d th a t

h e wa s S id Ca rte r, We b b ’s c u rre n t b o y frie n d

, wa s pla c in g th e c a ll fro m th e c e ll

p h o ne o f Ha rre ll’s so n

, a n d re fe rre d to a “ d e a d p u ssy ” in We b b ’s m a ilb o x . In

th e o th e r m e ssa g e

, Ha rre ll im p li e d th a t h e in te n d e d to u p lo a d po rn o g ra p h ic

v id e os of We b b to a n in te rn e t s i t e

. Th a t sa m e d a y

, Ca rte r, wh o liv e d with

We b b

, fo u n d a d e a d c a t in th e ir m a ilb ox wh e n h e c h e c k e d th e m a il. As Ca rte r

c a lle d 91 1 fro m h is c e ll p h o n e to re p o rt th e d e a d c a t, Ha rre ll d ro v e b y th e h o u se

,

2slo w e d d o wn c o n sid e ra b ly

, ro lle d d o wn a win d o w, a nd p o in te d a t th e m a ilb o x

c o n ta in in g th e d e a d c a t b e fo re d riv in g a wa y

. Ca rte r an d We b b la te r fo u n d a n

a n im a l tra p o n a p o rtio n o f Ha rre ll’s p ro p e rty wh ic h a d jo in e d We b b ’s.

1

. At th e tim e o f th e a c ts a lle g e d in H a rre ll’s in d ic tm e n t, OCGA § 1 6 -1 0

-

9 7 re a d :

(a ) A pe rso n wh o by th re a t o r fo rc e o r b y a n y th re a te n in g a c tio n, le tte r, o r

c o m m u n ic a tio n :

(1 ) En d e a v o rs to in tim id a te o r im p e d e a n y g ra n d ju ro r o r tria l ju ro r

o r a n y o ff i c er in o r o f a n y c ou rt o f th is sta te o r a n y c o u rt o f a n y

c o u n ty o r m

u n ic ip a lity o f th is sta te o r a n y o ffic e r w h o m a y b e

se rv in g a t a n y p ro c e e d in g in a n y su c h c o u rt wh ile in th e d isc h arg e

o f su c h ju ro r' s o r o ffic e r' s d u tie s;

(2 ) In ju re s a n y g ra n d ju ro r o r tria l ju ro r in h is o r h e r p e r so n o r

p ro p e rty o n a c c o u n t of a n y in d ic tm e n t o r v e rd ic t a sse n te d to b y h im

o r h e r o r o n a c c o u n t o f h is o r he r b e in g o r h a v in g b e e n su c h ju ro r;

o r

(3 ) In ju re s a ny offic e r in o r o f a n y c o u rt o f th is sta te o r a n y c o u rt o f

a n y c ou n ty o r m

u n ic ip a lity o f th is sta te o r a n y o ffic e r wh o m a y b e

se rv in g a t a n y p ro c e e d in g in a n y su c h c o u rt in h is or h e r p e rso n o r

p ro p e rty on a c c o u n t of th e pe rfo rm an c e o f h is o r h e r o ffic ia l d u tie s

sh a ll, u p o n c o n v ic tio n t h er eo f

, b e p u n ish e d b y a fin e o f no t m o re th a n

$ 5 ,0 0 0 .0 0 o r b y im

priso n m e n t fo r n o t m o re th a n 2 0 y e ars, o r b o th

. (b ) As use d in th is Co d e se c tio n

, th e te rm “ a n y offic e r in o r o f an y c o u rt”

m e a n s a j u d g e

, a tto rn e y

, c le rk o f c o u rt, d e p u ty c le rk of c o urt, c o urt

re p o rte r, o r p ro b a tio n o ffic e r.

(c ) A pe rso n wh o by th re a t o r fo rc e o r b y a n y th re a te n in g a c tio n, le tte r, o r

c o m m u n ic a tio n e n d e a vo rs to in tim id a te a n y la w e n fo rc e m e n t o ffic e r,

o u t sid e th e sc op e a n d c o u rse o f his o r h e r e m p lo y m e n t, o r h is o r h e r

im m e d ia te fa m ily m e m

b e r in re t a l i a t io n o r re sp o n se to th e d isc h a rg e o f

su c h o ffic e r' s o ffic i a l d u tie s sh a ll b e g uilty o f a fe lo n y a n d

, u p o n

3c o n v ic tio n th e re of, sh a ll b e p u n ish e d b y im p riso n m e n t fo r n ot le ss th a n

o n e n o r m ore th a n fiv e y e a rs, a fin e n o t to e x c e e d $ 5 ,0 0 0

. 0 0 , o r b o th

. 1

Ha rre ll c o nte n d s th a t, o n its fa c e a n d a s a p p lie d to h im , OCGA § 1 6 -1 0 -9 7 (a )

(1 ) is un c o n stitu tio n a l be c a u se it v io la te s th e rig h t o f fre e sp e e c h fo u n d in th e

F irst Am e nd m e n t to th e C o n stitu tio n o f th e Un ite d S ta te s. 2 Th e S u p re m e Co urt

o f th e U n ite d S ta te s ha s h e ld th a t a sta te c a n c rim in a liz e so m e sp e e c h m a d e with

th e in te nt to in tim id a te a n o th e r with ou t ru n n in g a fo u l of th e F irst Am e nd m e nt. 3

Virg in ia v

. Bla c k

, 5 3 8 U.S

. 3 4 3 ( 1 2 3 S C t 1 5 3 6, 1 5 5 LE2 d 5 35 ) (2 0 0 3 ).

Ho we ve r, we c o n c lu d e th a t OCGA § 1 6 -1 0 -9 7 (a ) (1 ) wa s un c o n stitu tio n a lly

a p p lie d to Ha

rre ll.

In Co u n ts 2 a n d 3 o f th e in d ic tm e nt, Ha rre ll wa s a lle g e d to h a v e v io la te d

1 I n 2015, an amendment to OCGA § 16-10-97 ex panded the applicability of the statute under

subsection (b). See Ga. L

. 2015, p. 422, § 5-25.

2 The State contends that the question of the constitutionality of OCGA § 16-10-97 (a) ( 1)

is not properly before this Court because Harrell d id not file his pleading raising the issue within 10

day s of arraig nment, as required by OCGA § 17-7-110. See also USCR 31.1. However, the State

did not raise any such issue below, before or after the trial court’s r uling on the subject, and its ability

to e nforce the strictures of OCGA § 17-7-110 o n appeal has been w a ived. See Hicks v. State

, 287

Ga. App. 105, 106 (1) (650 SE2d 767) (2007).

3 Harrell d oes not challeng e the constitutionality of that portion of OCGA § 1 6-10-97 (a) ( 1)

which prohibits “imped[ ing ] any g rand juror or trial juror or any [ court] officer

. . . .” B ut, we note

that p unishing speech that endeavors to impede the duties of a juror or court office r a p p ears to be

permissible under the F irst Amendment. See Haley v. State , 289 Ga. 515, 519-528 (2) (712 SE2d

838) (2011).

4OCGA § 1 6 -1 0 -9 7 (a ) (1 ), with b oth c ou n ts a c c u sin g h im o f

th e o ffe n se o f INTIMIDATION OF A COURT OF F ICER, fo r th a t

[Ha rre ll]

. . . b y a th re a te nin g c o m m u n ic a tio n, d id u n la wfu lly

e n d e a v o r to in tim id a te [th e a lle g e d v ic tim ] w h ile in th e d isc h a rg e o f

sa id o ffic e rs [sic ] d u tie s, b y th re a te n in g t o e mb a rra ss a n d h a ra ss

sa id [a lle g e d v ic tim i f th e a lle g e d v ic tim ] did n o t with d ra w a

wa rra nt issu e d b y

th e S u p e rio r Co u rt Ju d ge

. . . . 4

As n o te d

, a pr o h i b i tio n a g a in st in tim id a tin g a n oth e r b y sp e e c h d o e s n o t

n e c e ssa rily ru n a fo u l o f th e First Am e n d m e n t. H o w e v e r, in Bla c k

, su p ra

, th e

Un ite d Sta te s S u p re m e Co u rt a d d re sse d a Virg in iasta tu te th a t sta te d : “ It sh a ll

b e u n la wfu l fo r a ny pe rso n o r p e rso n s, with th e in te n t o f in tim id a tin g a n y p e rso n

o r g ro u p o f p e rso n s, to b u r n

, o r c a u se to b e b u rn e d

, a c ro ss o n th e p ro p e rty o f

a n o th e r, a h ig h wa y o r o th e r p u b lic p la c e .” Id

. a t 34 8 (I). In d o in g so

, th e Co urt

sta te d th a t “ [i] n tim id a tio n in th e c o n stitu tio n a lly p ro sc rib a b le se n se o f th e wo rd

is a ty pe o f tru e th re a t, wh e re a sp e a k e r d ire c ts a th re a t to a p e rso n o r g ro u p o f

p e rso n s with th e i n t e n t o f p la c in g th e vic tim in fe a r o f b o d ily h arm or d e a th .”

Id

. a t 3 4 4 (III) (A). Th u s, fo r in tim id a tio n su c h a s a lle g e d in th e in d ic tm e n t to

b e v a lid ly p ro sc rib e d b y OCGA § 1 6-1 0 -9 7 (a ) (1 ), th e in tim id a tio n m u st b e

4 W e note that by r equiring that the defendant “did

. . . endeavor” to intimidate a court officer

“while in the discharg e” of his or her duties, OCGA § 16-10-97 ( a) (1) does not have a s an element

of the crime that the intimidation be directed at procuring an act which the c ourt officer is actually

empowered to perform.

5c o n sid e re d a “ tru e th re a t.” A n d

, a s Bla c k n o te d

, “ ‘[t] ru e th re a ts’ e n c o m p a ss

th o se sta te m e nts wh e re th e sp e a k e r m e a n s to c o m m u n ic a te a se rio us e xp re ssio n

o f a n in te n t to c o m m it a n a c t o f u n la wfu l v io le n c e to a p a rtic u la r in d iv id u a l o r

g ro u p o f in div id u a ls. [Cits.] ” Id . a t 3 5 9

.

“ [I] n c a se s ra isin g F irst Am e n d m e n t issu e s . . . a n a p p e lla te c o u rt h a s a n

o b lig a tio n to ‘m a k e a n in de p e n d e n t e x a m in a tio n o f th e wh o le re c o rd ’ in o rd e r

to m a k e su re th a t ‘th e ju dg m e n t d o e s no t c o n stitu te a fo rb id de n in tru sio n o n th e

fie ld o f fre e e x p re ssio n .’ [Cits.] ” Bo se C o rp

. v

. Co n su m e rs Un io n o f U .S

., In c

. ,

4 6 6 U.S

. 4 8 5

, 4 9 9 (II) (1 04 S Ct 19 4 9

, 8 0 LE2 d 5 0 2 ) (1 9 8 4 ). S e e a lso Ne w Y ork

T ime s Co

. v

. S

u lliv a n

, 3 7 6 U.S

. 2 5 4, 2 8 4 -2 85 ( 8 4 S C t 7 10

, 1 1 L E2 d 6 8 6 )

(1 9 6 4 ). Wh e n d e te rm in in g wh e th e r “ ‘a n in te n t t o i nflic t b o d ily h arm ’ e x ists,

th e sp e e c h is e x a mi n e d in th e ‘lig h t o f its e n tire fa c tu a l c o n te xt, in c lu d in g th e

su rro u n d in g e ve n ts a n d re a c tio n o f th e liste n e rs.’ [Cit.] ” Co ra les v

. Be n n e tt

, 5 6 7

F .3 d 55 4

, 5 6 4 (III) (A) (9 th Cir. 20 0 9 ). A “ tru e th re a t” m a y b e c o n d itio na l, n e e d

n o t b e e x p lic it, a nd th e th re a te n e d v io le n c e n e e d n ot b e imm in e n t. Un ite d S ta tes

v

. T u rn e r

, 7 20 F3 d 4 1 1

, 4 2 4 (2 d Cir. 2 0 1 3 ). “ A tru e th re a t ‘c o n v e y [s] a g ra v ity

o f pu rp ose a

n d lik e l i h o o d o f e x e c utio n so a s to c o n stitu te sp e e c h b e y o n d th e

p a le o f p ro te c te d v e h e m e n t, c a u stic

. . . u n p le a sa n t l y s h a rp a tta c k s o n

6g o v e rn m e n t a n d p ub lic o ffic ia ls.’ [Cit.] ” N ie la n d e r v

. Bo a rd o

f Co u n ty Co m’rs

o f Co u n ty Re

p u b lic

, Ka n

. , 58 2 F .3 d 1 1 5 5

, 1 1 6 8 (II) (B) (2 ) (a ) (1 0 th Cir. 2 0 0 9 ).

As to Co un t 2 o f th e in d ic tm e n t, n a m in g Gra h a m a s th e v ic tim

, th e o n ly

e v id e n c e wa s th a t Ha rre ll p o ste d e m b a rra s sin g m a te ria l a

b o u t Gra h a m

, a n d

th re a te n e d to p o st m o re

. Th e fa c t th a t Ha rre ll’s c o mmu n ic a tio n s we re m a d e

o n ly by F a c e b oo k a nd th a t he d id n o t c o m m u n ic a te w ith Gra h a m d ire c tly wo u ld

n o t pre c lu d e th e ir b e in g c on sid e re d “ tru e th re a ts.” S e e Un ite d S ta te s v

. Ca stillo

,

5 6 4 F e d. Ap p x

. 5 0 0

, 5 0 2 -5 03 (1 1 th Cir. 20 1 4 ). Bu t, a lth o u g h Ha rre ll’s p o stin g

wa s o n a F a c e b o o k g ro up title d “ Dix ie Ma fia

, ” it o n ly su g g e ste d th a t sh e h a d lie d

to th e c o u rt a n d th a t su c h wo u ld le a d t o h e r a rre st, a n d th a t a n e m b a rra ssin g

v id e o o f h e r wo u ld b e re l e a se d ; n o th in g in th e c om m u n ic a tio n s th re a te n a n

u n la w fu l a c t o f v io le n c e to h e r a s re q u ire d b y Bla c k , su p ra

.

As to Co u n t 3 o f t h e i n d ic tm e n t, n a m in g Wa lk e r a s th e v ic tim

, Wa lk e r

t e s tifie d th a t a fte r Ha rre ll’s te le p h o n e c a ll, h e “ h a d to th in k a b o ut it a n d t r y t o

k e e p fro m g e ttin g a little n e rv o u s b e c a u se I k n e w fro m wh a t wa s go in g o n th a t

[Ha rre ll] m a y n o t ha v e b e e n sta b le m e n ta lly

, a n d so it c o nc e rn e d m e

. ” He a lso

te stifie d th a t h e “ fe lt in tim id a te d ” by H a rre ll’s F a c e b o o k p o stin g a n d te le p h o n e

c a ll, a nd wa s “ c o n c e rn e d ” wh e n Ha rre ll sta te d th a t h e “ w o uld tu rn [Wa lk e r’s]

7w o rld up sid e d o wn ,” b u t he did n o t te stify th a t h is c o n c e rn wa s re la te d t o a n y

fe a r o f vio le n c e

. Th e re w a s n o re fe re n c e to a n y fo r m o f v io le n c e in H a rre ll’s

c o m m u nic a t i o n s

, n o r e v e n a n in tim a tio n o f su c h

. S e e Bla c k

, su p ra

. Wh ile

Ha rre ll’s sp e e c h m ig h t we ll b e d e sc rib e d a s c a u stic a n d u n p le a sa n t, Nie la n d e r

,

su p ra

, it d id n o t c o n v e y “ a se rio u s e xp re ssio n o f a n in te n t to c o m m it a n a c t o f

u n la w fu l v io le n c e

. ” Bla c k , su p ra

. 5

A l th o u g h th e S ta te n o te s th a t OCGA § 16 -1 0 -9 7 (a ) (1 ) p ro h i b i t s

e n d e a vo rin g to im

pe d e a c o u rt o ffic e r th ro u g h c o m m u n ic a tio n

, a n d a sse rts th a t

Wa lk e r a n d Gra h a m we re im p e d e d in th e d isc h a rg e o f th e ir d u tie s b y v irtu e o f

Ha rre ll’s sp e e c h

, th e Sta te d id n o t c h a rg e Ha rre ll with im p e d in g c ou rt o ffic e rs,

o r a n y o th e r c rim e s th a t mig ht h a v e b e e n im plic a te d b y h is b e h a v io r, b u t o n ly

with e n de a v orin g to in tim id a te th e a lle g e d v ic tim s. An d , a s h is sp e e c h c a n n o t

b e c o n sid e re d to c o n stitu te “ tru e th re a ts,” a n d th u s d o e s n o t c o nstitu te a n y

p ro sc rib a b le a c t of in tim id a tio n

, h is c o n v ic tio n s fo r v io la tin g OCGA § 16 -1 0 -9 7

(a ) (1 ) m u st b e re v e rse d

.

5 W e note that the court did not instruct the jury on the meaning o f “ i n t i m i date” or “true

threat,” nor were such instructions r equested. Ho w e v er, our r esolution of this issue renders moot

any questi o n o f whether these omissions constituted plain error under OCGA § 17–8–58 (b). See

Cheddersingh v. State , 290 Ga. 680, 683 (2) (724 SE2d 366) (2012).

82

. Ha rre ll fu rth e r c o n te n d s th a t h e sh o u ld n ot h a v e b e e n t r i e d o n th e

a n im a l c ru e lty c ha rg e in th e sa m e p ro c e e din g in wh ic h h e h a d to a n swe r th e

c h a rg e s o f e n d e a v o rin g to in tim id a te c o u rt o ffic e rs, a n d th a t th e tria l c o urt e rre d

in d e n y in g h is m o tio n to se v e r th e c o u n ts. 6 Wh ile in so m e c irc u m sta nc e s jo in d e r

o f c h a rg e s is re qu ire d

, se e OCGA § 16 -1 -7 (b ), 7 th e a b ility o f th e S ta te to jo in

c h a rg e s is n o t u n f

e t t e re d

. In Din g le r v

. S ta te

, 2 3 3 Ga

. 4 62 (2 11 S E2 d 7 5 2 )

(1 9 7 5 ), th is Co urt a d op te d th e ABA S ta n d a rd s on J o i n d er o f Offe n se s, u n d e r

wh ic h

6 H arrell also asserts that d i s m i s s al o f the e ntire indictment is the proper remedy when

multiple charg es that should have been severed are presented in the same indictment, but the case

he c ites for that proposition does not so hold, rather it merely r e versed the trial court based upon the

specific pleading s in the case, which soug ht severance as an alternative re m e d y to quashing the

indictment. See Fair v. State , 129 Ga. App. 565 (200 SE2d 296) (1973).

7 OCGA § 16-1-7 reads:

(a) W h en the same conduct of an accused may establish the commission of more than one crime, the

accused may be prosecuted for each crime. H e may not, however, be convicted of more than one

crime if:

(1) One crime is included in the other; or

(2) The crimes d i f

f e r only in that one is defined to prohibit a desig nated kind of conduct

g enerally and the other to prohibit a specific instance of such conduct.

(b) I f the several crimes a rising from the same conduct are known to the p roper prosecuting officer

at the time of commencing the prosecution and are within the jurisdiction o f a sing le court, they must

be prosecuted in a sing le prosecution ex cept as provided in subsection (c) of this Code section.

(c) W hen two or more crimes are charg ed as required by subsection (b) of this Code section, the

court in the interest of justice may order that one or more of such charg es be tried separately

.

9[t] wo o r m o re o ffe n se s m a y be jo in e d i n o n e c h a rg e

, with e a c h

o ffe nse sta te d in a se p a ra te c o u n t, wh e n th e o ffe n se s, wh e th e r

fe lo n ie s o r m isd e m e a n o rs o r b o th : (a ) a re o f th e sa m e o r s i mi la r

c h a ra c te r, e v e n if n o t p a rt o f a sin g le sc h e m e o r p la n ; o r (b ) a re

b a se d o n th e sa m e c o n d u c t o r o n a se rie s o f a c ts c o n n e c te d to g e th e r

o r c o n stitu tin g p a rts o f a

sin g le sc he m e o r p la n

.

Id . a t 4 6 3 (P u nc tu a tio n o m itte d .) F urth e r, wh e n

t wo o r m o re o ffe n se s a

re jo in e d o n g ro u nd s th a t th e y a re o f t h e

sa m e o r s i mi l a r c h a ra c te r, a n d a re p a rt of a sin g le sc h e m e o r pla n

,

o r a re b a se d o n th e sa m e c o n d u c t o r o n a se rie s o f a c t s c o n n e c te d

to g e th e r o r c o n stitu tin g p a rts o f a sin gle sc h e m e o r p l a n

, th e tria l

c o u rt, in its d isc re tio n, sh o u ld g ra n t a se ve ra nc e o f o ffe n se s if it is

d e e m e d a

p p ro pria te to p ro m o t e a fa ir d e te rm in a tio n o f th e

d e fe n d a n t' s g u ilt o r in no c e n c e o f e a c h c h a rg e ; in th is re g a rd

, t h e

q u e stio n fo r d e c isio n is wh e th e r, in v ie w o f th e n um b e r o f o ffe n se s

c h a rg e d a n d th e c om

p le x ity o f th e e v id e nc e to b e o ffe re d , th e trie r

o f fa c t will b e a

b le to distin g u ish th e ev id e n c e a n d a p p ly th e la w

in te llig e n tly a s to e a c h o ffe n se

.

T e rry v . S ta te , 2 59 Ga . 1 6 5 , 1 6 8 (1 ) (3 7 7 S E2 d 8 37 ) (1 9 8 9 ).

Ha rre ll a sse rts th a t j o i n d e r o f th e a n im a l c ru e lty c h a rg e with th e o th e r

c h a rg e s wa s im

pro p e r, a s th e a c ts a lle ge d a re n o t p a rt o f a sin g le sc h e m e o r p la n

,

a re n o t b a se d o n th e sa m e c o n d uc t o r se rie s o f a c ts, a n d a re n o t o f th e sa m e o r

sim ila r c h a ra c te r. Se e Din g le r

, su p ra

. Ac c o rd in g l y

, h e u rg e s, th e tria l c o urt

e rre d in d e n y in g h is m otio n to se v e r th e c h a rg e s, a n d we a g re e

.

Of c o u rse

, c ru e lty to a n a n i ma l a n d e n d e a vo rin g to in tim id a te a c o urt

10o ffic e r a re n o t, ju d g in g b y th e ir sta tu to ry e le m e n ts, sim ila r c rim e s. No r d o th e

fa c ts su rro u n d in g th e c o m m issio n o f th e a c ts a lle g e d e x h ib it th e b a sis fo r a

p ro p e r jo in d e r o f c h a rg e s. Th e in d ic tm e n t a lle g e d th a t a n im a l c ru e lty wa s

c o m m itte d o n Ap ril 1 6, 2 0 1 3

, a n d th a t Ha rre ll e nd e a v o re d to in tim id a te th e c o urt

o ffic e rs o n A p ril 2 9

, 2 0 13

. Alth o u gh th e a c ts we re a lle g e d to h a ve b e e n

c o m m itte d in c lo se p ro x im ity o f tim e

, th e re c o rd is d e vo id o f a n y in d ic a tio n th a t

th e y we re c o m m itte d in p u rsu it o f so m e c o m m on sc h e m e o r th a t th e y h a d so m e

c o n n e c tio n

. As a lle g e d

, th e y w e re sim p ly se p a ra te c rim e s o f d iffe re n t c h a ra c te r,

c o m m itte d 1 3 d a y s a

p a rt.

Th e S t a t e c o n te n d s th a t th e sim ila rity be twe e n th e a c ts a lle g e d “ re a c he s

th e le v e l o f a pa tte rn .” Co op e r v

. S ta te

, 2 5 3 G a

. 7 3 6

, 73 7 (3 ) (3 2 5 S E2 d 1 3 7 )

(1 9 8 5 ). Bu t, th e re is n o e v id e n c e o f su c h

. Th e S ta te a sse rte d a t th e h e a rin g o n

th e m o tio n to se v e r, a nd n o w a sse rts in th is Co urt, th a t Ha rre ll u se d th e d e a d c a t,

a n d th u s th e re su lts o f th e a c t o f a n im a l c ru e lty

, “ to in tim id a te o r o t h e rwise

h in d e r [We b b ] fro m c on tin u e d p a rtic ip a tio n in [Ha rre ll’s] c o u rt c a se [] ,” a n d th a t

Ha rre ll th u s h a d a “ c o m m o n m o tiv e ” in m a k in g c ommu n i c a tio n s in te n d e d to

in tim id a te Wa lk e r, Gra h a m , a n d We bb

, a ll in re la tio n to c ou rt c a se s in v o lv in g

h im

. Ho we v e r, th is a rg u m e nt is n e c e ssa rily d e p e nd an t o n th e c la im th a t a t th e

11tim e o f th e a n im a l c ru e lty

, We b b wa s in vo lv e d in a c o u rt c a se o f Ha rre ll’s. Bu t,

th e S ta te m a d e a

b so lu te ly n o sh o win g in th is re g a rd ; n e ith e r a t th e pre

- t r ia l

m o tio n h e a rin g

, n o r a t tria l, d id t h e Sta te a tte m p t to p ro d u c e an y e v id e n c e to

su p p o rt its sta t eme n t to th e tria l c o u rt th a t W e b b wa s “ a w itn e ss in o n e c o urt

a c tio n ” in vo lv in g Harre ll.

Wh ile th e re wa s te stim o n y th a t th e re h a d b e e n p rio r c u sto d y d isp u te s b e twe e n

We b b a n d Ha rre ll, th a t Ca rte r d e sc rib e d a s “ b itte r,” th e re wa s n o te stim o n y th a t

wo u ld a llo w a n in fe re n c e th a t th e re wa s a n y c a s e e x i s t in g b e twe e n We b b a n d

Ha rre ll a t th e tim e o f th e a c ts a lle g e d

. No r d id th e m e ssa g e s th a t Ha rre ll le ft o n

We b b ’s a n swe rin g m a c h in e c o n ta in a n y re fe re n c e to a c ou rt c a se o f Ha rre ll’s. 8

An d

, th e re wa s no e v id e n c e th a t Ha rre ll’s m o tiv e fo r c o n ta c tin g We b b wa s

to a tte m p t to in tim id a te h e r i n t o a n y a c tio n. Of c o u rse

, th a t Ha rre ll h a d th e

m o tiv e to in tim id a te h is v ic tim s to ta k e c e rta in a c tio n s wa s e x p lic itly se t fo rth

in th e a lle g a tio n s re g a rd in g h is a c ts to wa rd Gra h a m a n d Wa lk e r. No r wa s th e

e v id e n c e o f a n im a l c ru e lty so i n t e r t w i n e d with e vid e n c e o f e nd e a v o rin g to

8 Even if the u se of a telephone to make an alleg edly threatening call to Walker can be seen

as similar to the use of a telephone to make a rg uably h a r as s i n g calls to W ebb, such would not

authoriz e jo i n d er

. R ather, if “charg es are joined solely b ecause they are of the same or similar

character, a defendant has a n absolute rig ht to sever. [ Cits.] ” S tewart v. S

tate

, 277 Ga. 138, 139 (587

SE2d 602) (2003).

12in tim id a te c o u rt o ffic e rs su c h th a t it wo u ld n o t b e p o ssib le to p re se nt e v id e n c e

o f o n e with o u t th e o th e r. S e e Ca rte r v

. S ta te , 2 6 9 Ga

. 4 2 0

, 4 2 2 (3 ) (4 9 9 S E2 d

6 3 ) (1 9 9 8); Ra d

fo rd v

. Sta te

, 2 5 1 Ga

. 5 0

, 5 1 (2 ) (3 02 S E2 d 5 5 5 ) (1 98 3 ). Ra th e r,

th e re wa s sim

p ly n o c o n n e c tio n sh o wn b e twe e n th e a lle g e d a n im a l c ru e lty a n d

th e a lle g e d c rim e s o f e n d e a vo rin g to in tim id a te c o u rt o ffic e rs. As th e re wa s n o

sh o win g th a t th e c rim e s a lle g e d we re b a se d o n th e sa m e c o nd uc t, we re p a rt o f

a sin g le sc h e m e o r p la n

, o r we re a se rie s o f c o n n e c t e d a c ts, jo in d e r wa s n o t

a u th oriz e d

. Din g le r , su p ra

.

F u rth e r, th e fa ilu re to se v e r th e c o un ts m ust b e c o n sid e re d h a rm fu l e rro r.

Th e c rim e o f e n d e a v o rin g to in tim id a te a c ou rt o ffic e r is o f a n e n tire ly d iffe re n t

n a tu re th a n a

n im a l c ru e lty

, a n d th e p o st u r e o f th e de fe nse wo u ld h a v e b e e n

d ra m a tic a lly diffe re n t h a d se v e ra n c e b e e n gra n te d

, a n d h a d th e S ta te p re se n te d

o n ly e v id e n c e re g a r d i n g t h e c h a rg e o f c ru e lty to a n a n im a l, with o u t th e

a d d itio n a l, a n d p re

ju d ic ia l, e vid e nc e re g a rd in g Ha rre ll’s c om m u n ic a tio n s to a n d

a b o u t Wa lk e r a n d Gra h a m b e in g p la c e d b e fo re th e ju ry

. S e e Ca rte r v S ta te

, 2 6 1

G a

. 3 44

, 34 5 (1 ) (4 04 S E2 d 4 3 2 ) (1 9 91 ). F u rth e r, Co u nts 2 an d 3 we re

a lle g a tio n s th a t sh o u ld n o t e v e n h a ve b e e n p re se n te d to a ju ry

, wh e th e r jo in e d

with Co u n t 1 o r sta n d in g by th e m se lv e s. S e e Div isio n 1

, su p ra

. Th e p re ju d ic ia l

13e ffe c t o f h a v in g to d e f en d t h e c h arg e o f a n im a l c ru e lty wh e n jo in e d with

d issimi l a r

, u n c o nn e c te d c h a rg e s is e x a c e rb a te d wh e n th o se c h a rg e s a re n o t

th e m se lv e s p ro pe rly p re se n te d fo r p ro se c utio n

. Th e pre se n tm e n t of th e jo in e d

c h a rg e s to th e ju ry in th is c a se se rv e s to d e m o n stra te th e v a lu e o f se v e ra n c e o f

c h a rg e s, wh ic h h e lp s to p re v e n t a d e fe nd an t fro m b e in g fo rc e d to p ro c e e d “ a t a n

u n fa ir d isa d v a n ta g e

, d u e to c o n fu sio n o f la w a n d e v id e n c e b y th e trie r o f th e fa c t

a n d th e ‘sm e a r’ e ffe c t su c h c o n fu sio n c a n p ro d u c e

. ” Din g le r

, su p ra a t 4 6 3

(P u n c tu a tio n o m itte d .) S e e a lso B ro wn v

. S ta te

, 2 3 0 Ga

. Ap p

. 1 90

, 1 9 3 -1 9 4 (2 )

(4 9 5 S E2 d 8 5 8 ) (1 99 8 ). In th e se c irc u m sta nc e s, Ha rre ll’s c o n v ic tio n o n t h e

c h a rg e o f a n im a l c ru e lty m ust b e re ve rse d

.

3

. As Ha rre ll c o u ld b e re trie d fo r c ru e lty to a n im a ls, we m u st a dd re ss h is

c o n te n tio n th a t th e e v id e n c e wa s in su ffic ie n t to su p p ort h is c on vic tio n fo r th a t

c rim e

. S e e Din n in g v

. S ta te

, 2 6 7 Ga

. 8 7 9

, 8 80 ( 4 8 5 S E 2 d 46 4 ) (1 9 9 7 ). 9 Th e

ju ry c ou ld h a ve in fe rre d fro m th e e v id e n c e p re se nte d th a t H ar r e l l t ra p p e d th e

c a t, k ille d it, a nd pla c e d it in We b b ’s m a ilb o x, a n d th e e v id e n c e th u s a u th o riz e d

a ra tio n a l trie r o f fa c t to fin d b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t th a t Ha rre ll wa s g u ilty

9 W e note that, as he was c onvicted of the lesser included crime of cruelty to a nimals, Harrell

cannot b e re-tried f

or the c r ime of ag g ravated cruelty to animals s e t forth in the indictment. See

W illiams v. State , 288 Ga. 7, 8-12 (2) (700 SE2d 564) (2010).

14o f th e c rim e of c ru e lty to a nim a ls. S e e J a c k so n v

. V irg in ia

, 4 4 3 U.S

. 3 0 7 ( 9 9

S Ct 2 7 81 , 6 1 L E2 d 5 6 0 ) (1 9 7 9 ).

4

. Th e in d ic tm e nt wa s n o t su b je c t to a sp e c ia l de m

u rre r a s it su ffic ie n tly

in fo rm e d Harre ll o f th e a nim a l c ru e lty c h a rg e h e m u st b e p re p are d b e to m e e t.

S e e S ta te v

. W

y a tt

, 2 9 5 Ga

. 2 57

, 2 6 0 (2 ) (7 89 S E2 d 5 0 0 ) (2 0 1 4 ); Little v

. S ta te

,

2 7 8 Ga . 4 25 , 4 2 8 (4 ) (6 0 3 S E2 d 2 5 2 ) (2 0 0 4 ).

5

. Ha rre ll’s re m a in in g e n u m e ra tio n s o f e rro r a re e ith e r re n d e re d m o o t b y

o u r re ve rsa l o f his c o n v ic tio n s o r a re u n lik e ly to re c u r o n re tria l. S e e J o n e s v

.

S ta te

, 2 9 2 Ga

. 6 5 6 , 6 6 2 -6 6 3 (3 ) (7 4 0 S E 2 d 5 9 0 ) (2 01 3).

Ju d g m e n ts re ve rse d . All th e Ju stic e s c o n c ur.

15