Goodwin v. the State
341 Ga. App. 530
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Valerie Goodwin was initially prosecuted in Hall County by accusation on two counts: Count 1 (felony) — obtaining hydrocodone by theft; Count 2 (misdemeanor) — theft by taking of tramadol.
- After a bench trial, Goodwin was convicted on both counts; this Court in Goodwin I reversed the Count 1 conviction because the State failed to obtain a required indictment for the felony, leaving the Superior Court without jurisdiction over that felony.
- The misdemeanor conviction (Count 2) was affirmed and remained intact.
- The State later obtained an indictment for the same felony offense (identical charging language to original Count 1) and Goodwin filed a plea in bar and motion to dismiss, arguing double jeopardy and res judicata barred the subsequent prosecution.
- The trial court denied the plea in bar; Goodwin appealed and this Court reviewed de novo whether procedural double jeopardy barred reprosecution.
- The Court held the subsequent prosecution was barred under Georgia’s procedural double jeopardy statutes because the misdemeanor conviction arose from the same conduct, was prosecuted in the same court, and Goodwin had been placed in jeopardy on that prior prosecution.
Issues
| Issue | Goodwin's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reprosecution by indictment is barred by procedural double jeopardy (OCGA § 16-1-8/16-1-7) | Subsequent felony prosecution is barred because prior prosecution placed her in jeopardy on related offenses arising from same conduct | Not barred: State argued it tried to prosecute both offenses initially and Goodwin had notice; also relied on exceptions and Keener | Held: Barred. Prior prosecution (misdemeanor conviction) placed Goodwin in jeopardy for same conduct; reprosecution for felony not allowed under §16-1-7(b)/§16-1-8(b) |
| Whether lack of indictment in earlier prosecution removes double jeopardy bar (jurisdictional defect) | Waiver of indictment on felony meant State should have indicted and prosecuted simultaneously; procedural bar still applies despite jurisdictional issue | Argued that because the felony was not properly indicted, constitutional jeopardy did not attach to it and reprosecution is permissible; relied on OCGA §16-1-8(d) and Keener | Held: Even though Count 1 lacked indictment (so constitutional jeopardy did not attach to it), jeopardy attached to Count 2 and §16-1-7(b) requires known related charges be prosecuted together; reprosecution barred |
| Whether State’s having proved evidence at prior trial defeats plea in bar under §16-1-8(d) exception | Goodwin argued §16-1-8(d) does not save the State because §16-1-7(b) required single prosecution of known related offenses | State argued conviction wasn’t reversed for insufficient evidence so §16-1-8(d) prevents bar to reprosecution | Held: §16-1-8(d) inapplicable to avoid §16-1-7(b) requirement — State still had burden to indict and prosecute together; reprosecution barred |
| Whether Keener and similar precedents permit reprosecution here | Goodwin distinguished Keener (involved lesser-included crimes and vacatur of major crime) and relied on statutes | State relied on Keener to argue reprosecution permissible where major crime reversed for jurisdictional defect | Held: Keener is distinguishable; crimes here were separate, not lesser-included, so Keener does not permit reprosecution |
Key Cases Cited
- Pierce v. State, 294 Ga. 842 (de novo review standard; clarified that there was not a second prosecution in facts of that case)
- State v. Martin, 173 Ga. App. 370 (procedural double jeopardy bars successive prosecutions for crimes arising from same conduct known to prosecutor)
- Keener v. State, 238 Ga. 7 (where lesser and greater crimes tried separately, conviction of lesser does not always bar retrial of greater; distinguishable when crimes are separate)
- McCannon v. State, 252 Ga. 515 (procedural double jeopardy principles applied where prior conviction existed for related conduct)
- State v. Smith, 185 Ga. App. 694 (defendant must have been placed in jeopardy in prior prosecution for §16-1-7/16-1-8 to apply)