Court Opinion

ID: 9581686
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:17:35.67767+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:11.437162
License: Public Domain

Beasley, Judge,
concurring specially.
I agree with the reversal of the judgment. But I concur with Division 1 of Presiding Judge Birdsong’s dissent. However, I do not concur in its Division 2, which relates to the application of the statute in this case.
1. First, a note about the dissent’s Division 1. The court dismissed the petition after concluding that “the former prosecution . . . was terminated improperly.” It is notable that the juvenile’s “plea in bar,” a device used in criminal proceedings, sought dismissal on the grounds of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the statute, OCGA § 16-1-8 (a) (2). There was no pursuit of, nor ruling on, the federal constitutional claim, so the sole preliminary issue is whether this statute governing criminal procedure applies to proceedings pursuant to OCGA § 15-11-28 on petitions alleging delinquency under OCGA § 15-11-25 in juvenile court.
*281Although I surmised in Smith v. State, 173 Ga. App. 728, 732 (327 SE2d 839) (1985), Beasley, J., concurring specially, that because of the language in OCGA § 16-1-8 and its focus, it did not apply to juvenile delinquency proceedings, I agree with the further analysis and conclusion in this case that it does.
2. Applying OCGA § 16-1-8, the record shows that the proceeding on May 31 on the petition alleging delinquency was not “terminated improperly.” It was a delay while the state undertook the court-required investigation into who, if anyone, represented the witness and to have that attorney counsel the witness on his Fifth Amendment rights before he testified. What occurred was akin to the circumstances in Sessions v. State, 131 Ga. App. 379 (206 SE2d 99) (1974). A continuance to afford counsel an opportunity to comply with the court’s direction was held not to show a termination and attempt to retry the defendant so as to jeopardize her twice.
At the outset of the hearing on the “plea in bar,” the court characterized the earlier proceeding to have been “either continued or adjourned by the Court to be reconvened ... I think at that time I said I’d give the State the benefit of an adjournment and to reconvene the case if there is a distinction in those.” After the assistant district attorney summarized the earlier proceeding, the court stated: “[W]e stopped for awhile. Now we’re picking it up again.” The court reiterated that what caused the cessation at that time was that it would not permit the witness to testify before first being advised by counsel regarding the ramifications of self-incrimination.
A trial court has discretion to grant a continuance. Vining v. State, 195 Ga. App. 816, 817 (2) (395 SE2d 17) (1990). This extends even after the movant has announced ready at trial, Bennett v. State, 186 Ga. App. 832 (2) (368 SE2d 789) (1988), and after issue is joined. Whatley v. State, 162 Ga. App. 106 (290 SE2d 316) (1982). The trial court was aware of this authority but apparently finally concluded that the continuance was a “termination.” But the two are not the same. As in Barner v. State, 139 Ga. App. 50 (1) (227 SE2d 874) (1976), the juvenile proceeding was not “terminated” but merely continued until the precondition which the court sua sponte put on the witness’ testimony could be met. Cf. Paquin v. Town of Tyrone, 261 Ga. 418 (405 SE2d 497) (1991). “A postponement, like a continuance, is not a ‘termination’ of the proceedings within the meaning of OCGA § 16-1-8 (a) where . . . the trial is resumed before the same jury” or, as here, delinquency proceeding resumed before the same judge. Knight v. State, 197 Ga. App. 250, 252 (5) (398 SE2d 202) (1990). Lumley v. State, 184 Ga. App. 898 (363 SE2d 69) (1987), is an example of cases terminated by the declaration of a mistrial, which is not the case here.
Even assuming the cessation of the hearing on May 31 consti*282tuted a “termination” within the contemplation of the statute, it was not terminated “improperly.” What prompted it was the court’s concern that the witness, who was present and willing to testify, might incriminate himself. The court refused to allow the state to proceed with the testimony of this witness until counsel could be produced to assure a waiver of Fifth Amendment privilege. The court put a precondition on this witness’ testimony and, since the state was not obliged to have foreseen it, some time to meet it. The witness did not even know if he had an attorney, and the state was unable to determine immediately who it was, if he had one, and to obtain that person’s presence. Allowing a delay so as to assure that a witness’ constitutional right is protected is not an “improper termination” of the hearing. It was the court’s concern, not the state’s unpreparedness or inability to produce its witnesses, which occasioned the recess.
It is undisputed that the court had determined that it was not possible to proceed because the witness’ attorney was not present. Assuring such counsel’s presence was not the state’s obligation so it cannot be charged with creating the continuance it was forced to seek because of the necessity for that witness’ testimony. Although the absence of the witness’ counsel may not fall within the category of proceedings terminated because of physical impossibility, OCGA § 16-1-8 (e) (2) (A), or any of the other four statutory instances of proper terminations because of necessity, the list is not exclusive. It merely specifies certain foreseen circumstances of termination which the legislature deemed not improper. Although both the State and the juvenile were ready to proceed, the court deemed it necessary to first assure that the witness was adequately counseled on his waiver of the right against self-incrimination. Given the interests of the public and of the juvenile to be served by proceeding to completion without interruption, such a reason is a valid one and takes a corresponding place alongside the four statutory instances.
The petition alleging delinquency should not have been dismissed.
I am authorized to state that Chief Judge Sognier and Judge Cooper join in this special concurrence.