Court Opinion

ID: 9581364
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:14:09.704255+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:53.518748
License: Public Domain

Beasley, Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur fully in Division 2 but believe that the circumstances underlying Division 1 warrant further comment, and that explanatory caution should be added to Division 3.
1. When the state’s brief was finally filed a month tardily, appellant moved to dismiss it, citing our Rule 14, which requires that appellee’s brief “shall be filed within” specified time. No sanction for failure of appellee to comply is set out in the rule, but failure on the part of appellant or cross-appellant is expressly subject to contempt. Under Rule 7, however, breach of a rule of this Court subjects the offender, which would include an appellee, not only to contempt but also to revocation of license to practice in this Court.
Rule 14 also provides that when the Court orders the filing, and the order is disobeyed by appellant or cross-appellant, the case “shall” be dismissed if civil and “may” be dismissed if criminal. Of course, an appellee’s disobedience of such an order would not cause dismissal of his opponent’s appeal, but it could under general law subject the appellee to contempt. OCGA § 15-1-4 (3); Crawford v. Manning, 12 Ga. App. 54 (3) (76 SE 771) (1912).
Thus, although the rule does not itself specify a sanction against a late-filing appellee, we could impose a Rule 7 sanction or at least simply choose not to consider his brief because of its untimeliness. Despite the fact that we have chosen to consider it in this case, it should be pointed out that such a cavalier effrontery of the Court’s rules may not always be met with such largesse. The rules, after all, are established to provide an orderly and reasonable appellate process which is fair to both sides of the litigation as well as to the Court, so as to achieve compliance with the Georgia Constitution of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. IX, Par. II.
When a party needs additional time, extension should be sought, as is fully provided for in OCGA § 5-6-39.
*719Decided April 24, 1987.
Joseph M. Todd, for appellant.
John C. Carbo III, Solicitor, Anne M. Landrum, Assistant Solicitor, for appellee.
2. I am of the opinion that a caveat is compelled in considering the use of the jury instruction focused on in Division 3. Taken out of context, and standing alone, it may very well be error because it gives the impression that no act, or omission to act when there is a duty to act, is called for before defendant can be found guilty as an aider and abettor.
Whitley v. State, 176 Ga. App. 364, 367 (1) (c)) (336 SE2d 301) (1985), from which the language was lifted and given as a charge, makes clear that “ ‘[e]ven approval of the act, not amounting to encouragement, will not suffice’ ” to constitute aiding and abetting, quoting from Brown v. State, 250 Ga. 862, 864 (302 SE2d 347) (1983). In Whitley, the conduct of defendant was viewed as the “omission to act” portion of OCGA § 16-2-1 when there was a statutory duty to take positive steps. Here, defendant’s behavior is, and was by the jury as instructed by the court, considered in terms of his affirmative actions, the other portion of OCGA § 16-2-1.
This decision, which involves the scope of what it means to “aid and abet,” must not be taken to expand its traditional boundaries. The court below carefully instructed the jury that proof of “a union of act and intention” by defendant was needed here, that the elements of the crime included taking and a specific intention, and the law with respect to parties to a crime. The court also charged the jury that it may consider defendant’s conduct as evidence of consciousness of guilt, but that mere presence is not sufficient to convict although “presence, companionship and conduct before and after the offense are circumstances from which one’s participation in the criminal intent may be inferred.”
Taking the whole charge in this case, with the challenged portion in its context, I agree that it was not error. Geter v. State, 219 Ga. 125, 134 (2) (132 SE2d 30) (1963); Scott v. State, 168 Ga. App. 631, 632 (309 SE2d 904) (1983).