Court Opinion

ID: 9539739
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:09:22.667149+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:17.476809
License: Public Domain

Benham, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
While I concur in Divisions 1, 2, and 3 of the majority opinion, I must respectfully dissent as to Division 4, since I consider it to be a headlong rush to give the nolo contendere plea the coup de grace.
The issue brought into focus by Division 4 is whether a nolo contendere plea should be admissible in a civil action for impeachment purposes. Were I writing merely for the moment I would have little difficulty in siding with the majority, but since I write for posterity, my vision must be future-oriented.
The legislature in its wisdom spoke emphatically on the effect of a nolo contendere plea: “Except as otherwise provided by law, a plea of nolo contendere shall not be used against the defendant in any other court or proceedings as an admission of guilt or otherwise or for any purpose; and the plea shall not be deemed a plea of guilty for the purpose of effecting any civil disqualification of the defendant to hold public office, to vote, to serve upon any jury, or any other civil disqualification imposed upon a person convicted of any offense under the laws of this state.” OCGA § 17-7-95 (c).
The majority notes that the nolo contendere plea here involved was not used as a “conclusive admission by her of her guilt. . . not to effect a civil disqualification,” then blithely says the plea is to be admitted “merely as a factor to be considered by the jury in assessing her credibility as a witness.” In so doing, the majority ignores the clear language of the statute: “a plea of nolo contendere shall not be used against the defendant in any other court . . . for any purpose.” (Emphasis supplied.) The majority buttresses its position by noting the trend toward liberality in admission of evidence and cities Gilstrap v. State, 250 Ga. 814 (2) (301 SE2d 277) (1983); Favors v. State, 234 Ga. 80 (214 SE2d 645) (1975); Hightower v. Gen. Motors Corp., 175 Ga. App. 112, 113 (332 SE2d 336) (1985); Giles v. Jones, 169 Ga. App. 882 (315 SE2d 440) (1984); and James v. State, 160 Ga. App. 185 (286 SE2d 506) (1981). In the final analysis the majority seeks to overrule Clinkscales v. State, 104 Ga. App. 723 (5) (123 SE2d 165) (1961), cert. denied, 369 U. S. 888 (82 SC 1162, 8 LE2d 288) (1962), which says that a nolo contendere cannot be used to impeach a witness.
An attempt is made here to discard the clear wording of the nolo contendere statute and assign it to an anachronistic realm. This ap*102proach weighs crushingly on my mind and causes me to take a serious and in-depth look at the history of the nolo contendere plea. Research reveals that the spirit of the nolo contendere plea has a long and venerable history extending back over three quarters of a century. This history, as far as a nolo contendere plea is concerned, is one of disallowing evidence short of a conviction to impeach a witness. Whitley v. State, 188 Ga. 177 (5) (3 SE2d 588) (1939); Beach v. State, 138 Ga. 265 (1) (75 SE 139) (1912); Davis v. State, 169 Ga. App. 422 (1) (313 SE2d 127) (1984); Strickland v. State, 166 Ga. App. 702 (305 SE2d 434) (1983); Howard v. Horn, 163 Ga. App. 771 (2) (295 SE2d 349) (1982); Arnold v. State, 163 Ga. App. 10 (1a) (293 SE2d 501) (1982); Richards v. State, 157 Ga. App. 601 (2) (278 SE2d 63); Beckum v. State, 156 Ga. App. 484 (2) (274 SE2d 829) (1980); Benefield v. State, 140 Ga. App. 727, 735 (232 SE2d 89) (1976); McCarty v. State, 139 Ga. App. 101 (1) (227 SE2d 898) (1976); Scott v. State, 131 Ga. App. 655 (2) (206 SE2d 558) (1974); Banks v. State, 131 Ga. App. 215 (3) (205 SE2d 520) (1974); Clinkscales v. State, supra.
The following excerpted language from Fortson v. Hopper, 242 Ga. 81 (247 SE2d 875) (1978), at 82-83, gives a clear definition of the plea and its effect: “The plea of nolo contendere is defined as an assertion by the defendant that he does not desire to contest the truth of the charges against him. [Cit.] Thus it is not a plea of not guilty, nor is it a plea of guilty. Rather, it lies approximately midway between the two extremes. Subject to the approval and consent of the judge of the court, it may be entered in any criminal case in any court of the state, except in capital felony cases. [Cit.] The privilege of entering a plea of nolo contendere is statutory in origin [cit.], and it was designed to cover situations where the side effects of a plea of guilty, in addition to the penalties provided by law, would be too harsh. [Cit.]”
It is the harshness mentioned in Fortson that the majority seeks to impose here and I seek to resist. The rule that I seek to preserve and the majority seeks to scuttle is that mentioned in Favors at 86: “Generally a witness is subject to impeachment by introducing the record of conviction of a felony, or a crime involving moral turpitude. The fact of indictment, or arrest, or trial, standing alone is not a legal method of impeachment.” The majority cites Favors with approval since it went on to rule that a first offender plea was admissible for impeachment purposes. However, Favors is easily distinguishable from the present case. There the defendant in a criminal case sought to impeach a state witness by the use of a first offender plea, and in allowing him to do so the court balanced the defendant’s right to a thorough and sifting cross-examination against the witness’ right to the sanctity of his first offender plea. Unquestionably, the court was correct in upholding the defendant’s right to cross-examination.
*103Here, the majority supports its position that “the trend in recent years has been toward increasing liberality in allowing such [nolo contendere] evidence” by citing Gilstrap v. State, supra; Favors v. State, supra; Hightower v. Gen. Motors Corp., supra; Giles v. Jones, supra; and James v. State, supra. James would not demand the majority result since it merely allowed the introduction of a conviction that was on appeal. Giles simply acknowledged that a conviction is admissible no matter how much time has elapsed since the conviction. Gilstrap appropriately applied the same balancing test applied in Favors.
However, in Hightower, which allowed the use of first offender convictions for impeachment, I joined the vigorous dissent by Judge Pope because I saw the decision as a smoldering ember that would soon burst forth into a full and devastating conflagration. The fears expressed in the Hightower dissent at 117-118 ring even more true today: “To allow the unrestricted use of a [nolo contendere] record for the purpose of impeachment, particularly in civil cases, would be directly contrary to the express mandate of the Act and would impose by judicial fiat a limitation, in addition to the one expressly provided by the General Assembly, on the right of [one who pleads nolo contendere] to be free from the stigma of a criminal record. I am persuaded that the General Assembly intended the Act to ameliorate the harsh consequences of a criminal conviction. . . .”
Not only is the clear language of the statute overlooked in the majority opinion, but some very practical considerations are ignored. The nolo contendere plea is not only an instrument of compassion used by the court, but it is also a tool of convenience for the State which is evidenced by the recent international dispute concerning an alleged Russian spy, Gennadiy Zakharov. There, a nolo contendere was used to avoid a major international confrontation. Other instances too numerous to mention show the need for upholding the sanctity of the nolo contendere plea.
The most important practical consideration ignored by the majority is that a nolo contendere plea is a privilege, the entering of which is subject to the trial court’s discretion. OCGA § 17-7-95; Bennett v. State, 153 Ga. App. 21 (264 SE2d 516) (1980). Who would be in a better position than the trial judge in the criminal offense to determine if a crime showed such moral turpitude that a defendant should forfeit some or all of his civil rights? If found to be so, the trial judge could disallow the nolo contendere or impose civil forfeiture of rights as a condition of probation.
The practical considerations of not hamstringing the district attorneys by diluting the effectiveness of nolo contendere as a bargaining tool and of not destroying the legislative wisdom in showing compassion for defendants must be applied in conjunction with rules of *104statutory construction, so aptly expressed by Judge Townsend in Wright v. State, 75 Ga. App. 764, 766 (44 SE2d 569) (1947): “In the construction of statutes it is the duty of the court to look for the intention of the General Assembly, keeping in view, at all times, the old law, the evil and the remedy. [Cit.] It is therefore the duty of the court to seek to determine the intention of the General Assembly in its passage of the Act to provide for plea of nolo contendere. This brings us to a consideration of the law existing prior to the passage of the nolo contendere statute. Prior thereto, in all cases where the defendant entered a plea of guilty, in a court of competent jurisdiction, the same could be used against him if otherwise admissible, as an admission of guilt. After plea of guilty was entered to certain specific charges or any crime involving moral turpitude, the person entering such plea was thereafter deprived of holding public office, voting and serving upon juries. The General Assembly, no doubt, had in mind that these penalties, in addition to the punishment provided for by law as to the respective offenses charged, would often be too drastic in specific instances; that ofttimes the degree of wrong surrounding the circumstances of one defendant would be so much less than that surrounding another, and yet the facts be such that no valid defense to the crime could be interposed. Also the General Assembly doubtless regarded a plea of guilty as too harsh, as applied to a person of good moral character and standing in his community, he being technically guilty of a crime, without a valid defense, and such plea often being admissible against him in other court proceedings. The foregoing being the old law and the evil, the General Assembly cast about for the remedy. Following the lead of other jurisdictions, including our Federal system of jurisprudence, provision was made for a plea of guilty that in the discretion of the court could be employed by defendants thus guilty of crime, which would authorize the court to impose the punishment fixed by statute as to the offense charged, without also carrying with it the objectionable and infamous provisions of law as herein outlined.”
Today’s decision reduces to insignificance the clear and unequivocal meaning of the statutory language contained in OCGA § 17-7-95. This attempt to ratchet down rights clearly granted by the legislature is an attempt to do by indirection that which is prohibited by direction. Therefore, I would affirm the trial court in the manner provided in Divisions 2 and 3 of the majority opinion. But I would reverse as provided in Division 1 of the majority opinion, and in addition I would reverse as to Division 4 for the reasons contained herein.
I am authorized to state that Judge Pope joins in the dissent as to Division 4 and that Judge Carley and Judge Beasley join in the dissent as to Division 4 in judgment only.
*105Decided November 12, 1986
Rehearing denied December 2, 1986.
Randie Siegel, for appellants.
Phillip N. Lavender, for appellee.