Court Opinion

ID: 9622431
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:17:36.681584+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:16.456955
License: Public Domain

HINES, Justice,
dissenting.
As the majority does not abide by the clear requirements of OCGA § 17-8-57, I must respectfully dissent.
The majority correctly notes that the issue of venue was joined when Gardner pled not guilty to the indictment. See Maj. Op. p. 635, n. 3. And, “[v]enue is a jurisdictional fact, and is an essential element in proving that one is guilty of the crime charged. Like every other material allegation in the indictment, venue must be proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt.” Patel v. State, 282 Ga. 412, 414 (2) (651 SE2d 55) (2007) (citation and punctuation omitted). Further, as the majority states, a violation of OCGA § 17-8-57 “will always constitute ‘plain error,’ ” requiring a new trial. Maj. Op. at p. 634.
Despite recognizing these precepts, the majority fails to uphold them. The trial court’s colloquy regarding venue clearly shows that the court expressed its opinion that venue had not been proved. That opinion was the basis of the court’s interjection. Expressing such an opinion is a readily apparent violation of OCGA § 17-8-57. By the very language of this statute, “[s]hould any judge violate this Code *636section, the violation shall be held by the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals to be error and the decision in the case reversed, and a new trial granted in the court below with such directions as the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals may lawfully give.” OCGA § 17-8-57. (Emphasis supplied.) Accordingly, a new trial must be ordered.
Decided February 1, 2010
Reconsideration denied March 15, 2010.
Julia A. Slater, District Attorney, William D. Kelly, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, for appellant.
Kathryn E. Rhodes, for appellee.
I am authorized to state that Justice Thompson joins in this dissent.