Gutierrez v. State, 290 Ga. 643

Background

Gutierrez, then 16, was indicted in superior court for armed robbery and related offenses.
State moved to transfer the case to juvenile court under OCGA § 15-11-28 (b) (2) (B).
Evidence showed four armed men entered a restaurant, demanded money, and assaulted the owner’s family.
The cash register was opened by the victim’s 11-year-old son; no money was physically removed.
The trial court denied transfer; Court of Appeals affirmed, holding asportation occurred when the cash drawer was opened and money exposed.
Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari and ultimately held that the movement of the cash drawer satisfied asportation, affirming denial of transfer; dissents argued no asportation occurred.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did asportation occur when the cash drawer moved but the money remained in the drawer?	State argued any movement exposing the money constitutes asportation.	Gutierrez argued there was no transfer of dominion since the money never left the drawer.	Yes; movement of the drawer constituted asportation.
Is Watson/Sharp framework controlling for asportation when no physical control is taken?	State urged adoption of Watson and reversal of Sharp to uphold asportation.	Gutierrez urged a Watson test but argued no qualifying act occurred here.	Court overruled Sharp and adopted asportation framework consistent with Watson; movement sufficed.
Does the evidence satisfy the elements of armed robbery under OCGA § 16-8-41(a)?	State contends the taking occurred via asportation when money was moved to the perpetrator’s reach.	Gutierrez contends no taking occurred without actual control of the money.	Armed robbery proven under asportation standard; jurisdiction denial affirmed.
Should the case have been transferred to juvenile court given potential lack of jurisdictional support for trial as a juvenile case?	State maintains superior court properly exercised jurisdiction given the allegations.	Gutierrez argues the facts do not meet the asportation standard, warranting transfer.	Not applicable to the final holding; the Court denied transfer (majority) and affirmed denial.
Is Sharp v. State still good law after this decision?	State relied on overruling Sharp to support asportation.	Gutierrez urged continuing to apply Sharp’s narrower view.	Yes; Sharp v. State overruled in favor of the broader asportation standard used here.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Watson, 239 Ga. App. 482 (1999) (asportation can occur when victim complies with orders to place property in a location)
Sharp v. State, 255 Ga. App. 485 (2002) (overruled; faulty focus on complete dominion alone)
James v. State, 232 Ga. 834 (1974) (asportation requires the slightest location change transferring dominion)
Miller v. State, 223 Ga. App. 453 (1996) (asportation where perpetrator removes cash drawer from register)
Johnson v. State, 432 So.2d 758 (Fla. App. 1983) (no requirement that property be touched to satisfy asportation under some circumstances)
State v. Johnson, 558 N.W.2d 375 (Wis. 1997) (no asportation where car did not move despite attempts to start it)
Tarver v. State, 278 Ga. 358 (2004) (discusses asportation elements and related standards)