Harris v. State
314 Ga. App. 816
Ga. Ct. App.2012Background
- Harris faced misdemeanor obstruction following a daycare welfare check for his infant daughter, in which DFCS sought to determine the child’s welfare; officers came with a bond condition prohibiting Harris from being at the residence.
- Five Cobb County officers knocked and identified themselves; Harris exited and declined to invite them in or answer questions about the child.
- An audio recording captured a 95-second exchange where officers pressed Harris, who repeatedly stated he would not cooperate and asked to see a court order; the officers warned of arrest for obstruction.
- The state argued Harris’s conduct—refusing to answer questions and demanding officers leave—could be seen as obstruction because it impeded an ongoing welfare investigation.
- The jury heard testimony that the welfare check was lawful under an open deprivation case, and Harris admitted choosing not to cooperate; the majority ultimately held this conduct did not meet the statute’s knowing and willful obstruction element.
- The trial court denied Harris’s directed verdict; the majority reversed, concluding the evidence did not establish obstruction as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Harris’s conduct constituted obstruction of an officer under OCGA 16-10-24(a) | Harris argues his peaceable assertion of rights cannot be obstruction | State contends words and conduct can satisfy obstruction when hindering lawful duties | No; conduct did not satisfy obstruction as a matter of law |
| Whether the statute as applied violated constitutional rights | Harris contends First/Fourth/Fifth Amendment protections render conduct non-obstructive | State maintains statute’s scope is consistent with its purpose and precedent | Not necessary to decide constitutional issue; reversed on statute construction grounds |
| Did the audio/video evidence support obstruction under the facts | Recording shows no entry or threats; obstruction not proven | Record supports that Harris impeded investigation by not answering questions | Evidence insufficient to sustain obstruction conviction; reversed |
| Was the obstruction conviction supported by cases upholding obstruction with words plus conduct | There are precedents where speech plus action supported obstruction | Such cases require more than mere questioning or refusal; not met here | Historical precedents do not control; Harris’s conduct here did not reach obstruction threshold |
| Should the verdict be affirmed on alternative theories (e.g., “leave the premises” or misdirection) | State suggested alternative bases for obstruction | Not reached due to reversal on main obstruction issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Hudson v. State, 135 Ga.App. 739 (Ga. App. 1975) (obstruction statute broad but requires knowing and willful conduct)
- Stryker v. State, 297 Ga.App. 493 (Ga. App. 2009) (statute broad to cover obstructive actions, but not every hindering act constitutes obstruction)
- Ballew v. State, 245 Ga.App. 842 (Ga. App. 2000) (constitutional considerations cannot sanction broad obstruction based on rights assertion; overruled in part later)
- Beckom v. State, 286 Ga.App. 38 (Ga. App. 2007) (insufficient to support obstruction where conduct slow to come to door and no knowledge of ongoing investigation)
- Johnson v. State, 299 Ga.App. 474 (Ga. App. 2009) (de novo review of undisputed facts from recording; standard for directed verdict)