Court Opinion

ID: 9604933
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:28:30.375729+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:25.474812
License: Public Domain

Andrews, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent because the trial court’s grant of summary judgment was proper regardless of whether the bad check prosecution action terminates in Williams’ favor, since Williams could not maintain a malicious prosecution action as a matter of law. Williams concedes that he issued a bad check1 and thus regardless of whether there was subsequent restitution, no genuine issue of material fact remains in this case regarding probable cause.
“The crime of issuing a bad check occurs at the time the check is issued if it is made or issued with the knowledge that it will not be honored. Contrary to appellant’s assertions, notice of the drawee’s refusal to pay, followed by ten days for the defendant to pay the check (upon notice of its dishonor), is not an element of the offense of issuing a bad check.” (Punctuation omitted.) Russell v. State, 155 Ga. App. 555 (1) (271 SE2d 689) (1980). In Wilson v. Home Depot, supra, the court stated: “[a]s opposed to the subsequent failure to make restitution, evidence of subsequent restitution, standing alone, has no real relevancy to criminal liability under OCGA § 16-9-20. The offense is completed when the check is delivered, and it is the criminal intent present at that moment which the law proscribes. Thus, under the statutory scheme, it is the subsequent failure to make timely restitution after written notice of dishonor that authorizes the evidentiary inference that the maker knew at the time of delivery that payment would not be made upon presentment to the drawee. Whether the payee was ever actually afforded restitution is irrelevant to the guilt or innocence of the perpetrator. The drawer of a bad check may *724subsequently agree to and actually make restitution and still have had, at the time he issued the check, the requisite criminal intent. Thus, even under appellant’s own version of the events, there were no facts or circumstances which in any way could be construed as being exculpatory with regard to [his] admitted prior act of issuing a bad check. Repayment of the victim will not constitute a bar to conviction of the offender.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Id. at 219; see also Parish v. State, 178 Ga. App. 177 (342 SE2d 360) (1986).
Decided February 7, 1992.
Murray, Donovan & Nabors, Donald R. Donovan, for appellant.
Steven C. Adams, William T. Cox, Jr., for appellee.
In contrast to the majority’s interpretation of Wilson, I believe that the holding of that case was that subsequent restitution has no bearing upon the determination of probable cause in a malicious prosecution claim. Accordingly, I do not believe that the plaintiff’s affidavit stating that he redeemed the check created a material issue of fact regarding probable cause. “The probable cause referred to has been defined to be, the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted.” (Punctuation omitted.) Wilson, supra at 220.
Therefore, “[u]nder the evidence, the pleadings were pierced as to appellee’s alleged lack of probable cause and appellant did not meet [his] burden of showing that a genuine issue of material fact remained as to [his] malicious prosecution claim.” Wilson, supra at 220. Accordingly, the trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment regarding the malicious prosecution claim was correct.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge Birdsong joins in this dissent.

 I do not suggest by this statement that Williams admitted committing the crime, but only that he admitted that he drew and delivered a check which was dishonored for insufficient funds. See Wilson v. Home Depot, 180 Ga. App. 218 (348 SE2d 588) (1986); compare Stallings v. Coleman, 165 Ga. App. 667 (302 SE2d 412) (1983).