Court Opinion

ID: 9584806
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:52:52.612489+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:16:44.003835
License: Public Domain

Gunter, Justice,
dissenting. The majority opinion holds that the statute (Code Ann. §26-1808) under which the appellant was indicted does not violate the provision of the Georgia Constitution (Code Ann. § 2-121) which prohibits imprisonment for debt. I am of the opinión that this statute does violate this provision of the Georgia Constitution.
This statute says that one commits theft by conversion when, having lawfully obtained funds or other property of another under an agreement or other known legal obliga*730tion to make a specified application of such funds or a specified disposition of such property, he knowingly converts the funds or property to his own use in violation of such agreement or legal obligation. The statute then goes on to say that it applies even "when the agreement contemplates that the accused may deal with the funds or property of another as his own.”
It is this latter part of the statute which leads me to the conclusion that the statute as a whole conflicts with the Constitution of Georgia. If one obtains funds or property pursuant to an agreement which "contemplates” that the one obtaining such funds or property may deal with the same "as his own,” then the other contracting party by the very terms of the "agreement” allows the accused to deal with the funds or property as if it were the funds or property of the accused.
And an accused who is allowed by contract to deal with another’s property "as his own,” cannot be convicted and incarcerated for dealing with such funds or property in any manner, provided he could deal with his own funds or property in that manner.
One who deals with another’s funds or property "as his own” may incur an obligation or liability to the true owner, but under such a contract or agreement he cannot commit an offense for which he can be confined in jail. The Georgia Constitution says that a citizen cannot be imprisoned for debt. That means that one cannot be imprisoned for incurring a monetary obligation or liability to another.
As I read this statute in its entirety, it permits one to be convicted and confined for incurring a monetary obligation or liability to another with whom the former has contracted to deal with the latter’s funds or property "as his own.”
I think the Georgia Constitution proscribes a conviction and confinement under such a contract.
I respectfully dissent.