Court Opinion

ID: 9560053
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:42:21.668639+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:02.457143
License: Public Domain

Hill, Chief Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I dissent to so much of Division 4 as finds the evidence to be sufficient to find defendant Kelly guilty of the crime of dogfighting. The only evidence against Kelly was that he was found hiding in some bushes and had $338 on his person.
I dissent to so much of Division 4 as finds the three defendants guilty of gambling. Although the evidence against Hargrove and Swetman was sufficient to find them guilty of the crime of dogfighting and commercial gambling, there is no evidence that any of these defendants made any bets on any dog. See OCGA § 16-12-21 which defines the crime of gambling.
I dissent to Division 5 because, under the facts of this case I would find the crime of dogfighting, OCGA § 16-12-37, as alleged in this indictment to be a lesser included crime to the offense of commercial gambling, OCGA § 16-12-22, as alleged in this indictment (operating “a gaming place, to wit: a dogfight . . .”). See OCGA § 16-1-7 (a) (2).
I therefore concur in Divisions 1, 2, 3 and 6 of the majority opinion and so much of Division .4 as finds defendants Hargrove and Swetman guilty of commercial gambling.
I am authorized to state that Justice Smith joins in the foregoing.