Case Name: ZATER v. THE STATE
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1990-10-25
Citations: 197 Ga. App. 648
Docket Number: A90A0877
Parties: ZATER v. THE STATE.
Judges: Carley, C. J., McMurray, P. J., Banke, P. J., Birdsong, Sognier, Pope and Cooper, JJ., concur. Beasley, J., dissents.
Reporter: Georgia Appeals Reports
Volume: 197
Pages: 648–653

Head Matter:
A90A0877.
ZATER v. THE STATE.
(399 SE2d 222)

Opinion:
Deen, Presiding Judge.
A Barnesville Police Department officer gave chase to a "small, red, Mercury Lynx" for speeding but lost sight of the car. She called for backup and was notified within a few minutes that a car answering that description had been stopped by the Lamar County Sheriff's Department. She met the officers some 30 minutes later at the Sheriff's Department and charged the driver with speeding, and with fleeing and attempting to elude within the city limits of Barnesville. The case was dismissed in the Barnesville Municipal Court because the calibration of the radar was not offered.
The arresting officer testified in the instant case that he received a lookout for a small red vehicle being driven recklessly at a high rate of speed on Hwy. 41, towards Forsyth. Approximately five minutes later, the officer encountered the vehicle and stopped it. The defendant was driving and reeked of alcohol. He was taken to the Sheriff's Department, an intoximeter test was given, and he was charged with DUI. Under "remarks" on the citation, the officer noted, "Stopped for lookout from city ref speeding auto . . . when stopped strong odor of alcoholic beverage on breath." Nearly four months later, an accusation based upon the arresting officer's citation was returned against the appellant for the offense of DUI in the Superior Court of Lamar County.
Appellant filed a motion to dismiss, and a plea in bar was filed alleging that the superior court prosecution was barred by the dismissal of the charges in the Barnesville Municipal Court. Zater appeals from the denial of his plea in bar.
1. Multiple convictions and successive prosecutions for the same conduct are prohibited under OCGA § 16-1-7 (b): "If the several crimes arising from the same conduct are known to the proper prosecuting officer at the time of commencing the prosecution and are within the jurisdiction of a single court, they must be prosecuted in a single prosecution. ."
In determining whether the prosecuting attorney had knowledge of the offenses in the Barnesville Municipal Court, the Court in Baker v. State, 257 Ga. 567, 569 (361 SE2d 808) (1987), determined that OCGA § 16-1-7 (b) applies " 'only to such crimes which are actually known to the prosecuting officer actually handling the proceedings.' " Under Baker, the appellant bears the burden of showing that further prosecution is barred by the previous prosecution, including "a showing that the proper prosecuting attorney had actual knowledge of all the charges." Hayles v. State, 188 Ga. App. 281 (372 SE2d 668) (1988); Farmer v. State, 184 Ga. App. 851 (363 SE2d 62) (1987).
The argument espoused by the defendant that the "proper prosecuting officer" is the arresting officer has been rejected by this court on several occasions. In Singer v. State, 156 Ga. App. 416 (2) (274 SE2d 612) (1980), construing what is now OCGA § 16-1-7 (b), this court held that "the language of the statute clearly means the prosecuting attorney for the state; that is, the district attorney or his authorized assistants." Id. at 418. Although, as noted by the dissent, the holding in Singer should be expanded to include state court solicitors and their assistants, we do not agree with the dissent that we should retreat from the central holding in Singer that the "proper prosecuting officer" as that phrase is used in OCGA §. 16-1-7 means the prosecuting attorney for the State. More recently in Webb v. State, 176 Ga. App. 576 (336 SE2d 838) (1985), this court reiterated the holding in Singer and found that the knowledge of the arresting officer was immaterial because the " 'proper prosecuting officer' within the meaning of OCGA § 16-1-7 (b) is not the arresting police officer but the prosecuting attorney for the State." Id. at 577. Likewise, in Soule v. State, 184 Ga. App. 598 (362 SE2d 155) (1987), this court held that "[t]he fact that the arresting officer knew of all the charges [against the accused] is inconsequential, since the proper prosecuting officer is the prosecuting attorney, not the arresting officer." Id. at 599.
Moreover, the cases cited by the dissent for the proposition that "[a] prosecutor in Georgia is not necessarily a State's attorney" do not involve the application of OCGA § 16-1-7 (b), as did the cases cited above. Rather, the issue in McKee v. State, 168 Ga. App. 214 (1) (308 SE2d 574) (1983), concerned the term "prosecutor" as used in OCGA § 15-12-163 (b) relating to jury disqualification. In In re Herring, 185 Ga. App. 541, 542 (1) (365 SE2d 139) (1988), the court first had to ascertain the identity of the "prosecutor" within the meaning of OCGA § 17-11-4 (a) (3) so it could then determine whether the "prosecution" against the accused had been abandoned before trial so as to authorize the imposition of costs pursuant to that section. In Eady v. State, 10 Ga. App. 818 (74 SE 303) (1912), the question before the court concerned the use of the term "prosecutor" in legislation creating a city court which required defendants in criminal cases to be tried on a written accusation founded upon the affidavit of a "prosecutor." In that case this court found that an accusation signed by the solicitor of the court was sufficient under the terms of the act. In sum, a reading of the cases cited by the dissent shows that they are in no way illuminative of the issue to be decided in this case, to wit, whether the arresting officer should be deemed to be the "proper prosecuting officer" within the meaning of OCGA § 16-1-7 (b).
Adoption of the view espoused by the dissent would be the first instance in which this court has placed the burden on a police officer to bind proceedings over to another court because the officer knows defendant has been charged with other offenses arising out of the same conduct. Implicit in this holding is that the police officer must know that failure to do so would result in the inability to try the accused for all the charges against him. In our opinion, such a drastic change in the law is not warranted.
2. Appellant's reliance upon Daniels v. State, 78 Ga. 98, 102 (1886) and State v. Rowe, 138 Ga. App. 904, 905 (228 SE2d 3) (1976), is misplaced as those cases do not support Zater's position that he should have been granted a jury trial on the issue of his plea in bar to the DUI offense. The issues of fact which must be submitted to the jury on a plea in bar are the identity of the offender and the offense, and the existence of the record. In Zater's case, there is no issue as to identity of the offender who committed the offense, as he is clearly identified as the defendant in both courts and the record was shown to exist. It was not necessary to have a jury hear the plea.
Judgment affirmed.
Carley, C. J., McMurray, P. J., Banke, P. J., Birdsong, Sognier, Pope and Cooper, JJ., concur. Beasley, J., dissents.