Court Opinion

ID: 9616767
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:49:35.24015+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:01.164986
License: Public Domain

Smith, Justice,
dissenting.
The majority’s affirmance of the appellant’s conviction for tampering with evidence by hiding a pistol requires a finding that a juror could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant knowingly concealed the murder weapon with the intent to obstruct the state’s case against him. This count of tampering with the evidence would be a close call even under a preponderance of the evidence standard. The court should reverse both, not just one, of the petty, trivial convictions for tampering with evidence.
The lead investigator in the case for the Bainbridge Police Department testified that no obstruction of the investigation occurred as a result of the appellant placing the pistol under the mattress. Neither the state nor the appellant presented evidence as to the normal resting place of the pistol. Evidence introduced as to the ownership of the pistol proved ambiguous, as the phrase “his own gun” did not clearly apply to either the appellant or the victim. Finally, the appellant, almost immediately after the shooting, had the police summoned, admitted the shooting to them, and specifically stated that he had shot the victim with a pistol.
The majority states, “The jury could reasonably infer that Chas-tain hid the weapon in the interval between the shooting and contact with Morgan in the boarding house hallway.” The jury could just as reasonably infer that Chastain simply placed the pistol back in a place where it might normally be kept. For examples of storage, not concealment, of weapons under mattresses or beds, see Raines v. State, 247 Ga. 504 (277 SE2d 47) (1981); Thomas v. State, 244 Ga. 608, 609 (261 SE2d 389) (1979); Brown v. State, 233 Ga. 171 (210 SE2d 706) (1974); Maloof v. State, 145 Ga. App. 408, 409 (243 SE2d 634) (1978); Mitchell v. State, 134 Ga. App. 376, 379 (214 SE2d 593) (1975); Gainey v. State, 132 Ga. App. 870 (209 SE2d 687) (1974); Pennamon v. State, 110 Ga. App. 475, 476 (138 SE2d 890) (1964). Where, as here, the evidence regarding the crime of tampering with evidence is undisputed, and is every bit as indicative of innocence as it is of guilt, the defendant’s conviction should be reversed.
As for the appellant’s intent to obstruct the investigation by hid*727ing the pistol, the possibility that he did not intend to conceal the pistol raises the possibility that he did not intend to hinder the police. In addition, his immediate call to the police and his subsequent admission of the shooting and description of the weapon that he used support the conclusion that he did not intend to obstruct the prosecution of the crime that he reported. The only evidence of criminal intent involved here is an inference drawn from ambiguous facts. Clearly, no juror could find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the appellant intended to obstruct the prosecution in his actions following the victim’s death.
Decided May 9, 1986.
Lambert, Floyd & Conger, George C. Floyd, for appellant.
J. Brown Moseley, District Attorney, Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, J. Michael Davis, Staff Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Finally, the state should have to show, under this code section, that the defendant created at least some degree of obstruction of prosecution of a case for his conviction to stand. Here, the state’s lead investigator testified that no obstruction occurred. The appellant actually expedited the prosecution by calling the police, by admitting his role in the homicide to the police, and by describing the death-dealing weapon. The prosecution and conviction for tampering with evidence under these facts is really piling it on.
I think the legislature never intended for this statute to apply to the person charged with a crime. At least it should merge with the more serious crime charged, murder here. To so hold simply means that almost anyone charged with a crime could also be charged with tampering with evidence or obstructing the prosecution of a case. This would be true in every case unless the person revealed every minute detail of the transaction. To apply this statute in the way the majority has is absurd.
I am authorized to state that Justice Weltner joins in this dissent.