Harris v. State
324 Ga. App. 411
Ga. Ct. App.2013Background
- Harris and accomplices identified vacant houses they did not own, made repairs, changed locks, and rented them using fake lease documents and claims of authority.
- They also induced homeowners facing foreclosure to sign “Candidacy Agreements,” paying Harris’s company in exchange for promises to find alternative housing that were not delivered.
- The scheme involved 14 properties in which Harris or his company had no property interest; prospective tenants were prevented from recording documents and paid rent to Harris.
- A grand jury returned a 50-count indictment alleging RICO violations, burglary, theft by taking and by deception, forgery, and criminal trespass; a jury convicted Harris on all counts.
- The trial court sentenced Harris to 40 years (with multiple counts merged); he appealed arguing insufficiency of evidence on several offenses, erroneous limitation on defense theory, denial of a special demurrer, and errors in jury instructions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for theft by taking (asportation, intent, value) | State: unauthorized exercise of dominion (renting) suffices; statute does not require physical asportation | Harris: real property was never moved so no asportation; lacked intent to permanently deprive; value not proved over $500 | Court: Statute covers appropriation regardless of manner; exercising dominion (charging rent) supports theft; intent to temporarily use without authorization is sufficient; value proven. |
| Sufficiency for burglary | State: underlying theft/deceptive scheme supported intent to commit felony in premises | Harris: lack of theft proof means no intent to commit felony inside premises | Court: Because theft conviction is supported, burglary conviction stands. |
| Sufficiency for theft by deception | State: false claim of authority induced tenants to pay; tenants’ receipt of housing does not negate deception | Harris: tenants received full value for payments | Court: Misrepresentation of authority created false impression leading to payments; deception established. |
| RICO convictions tied to underlying acts | State: predicate acts proved (theft, burglary, deception, forgery, trespass) | Harris: underlying acts insufficient, so RICO fails | Court: Predicate acts sustained by evidence; RICO convictions affirmed. |
| Ability to argue lack of criminal intent based on civil-law belief | Harris: could present belief he thought he had civil-law authority (abandonment, adverse possession) | State: trial court barred presentation of mistaken civil-law theories but allowed subjective belief and conduct showing good-faith belief | Held: Trial court properly excluded incorrect civil-law instructions; Harris could still argue lack of criminal intent via subjective belief and conduct; no reversible error. |
| Special demurrer re: broad indictment dates | Harris: time frame too broad, prejudiced defense | State: dates tied to company operation; some dates unknown to State | Held: No prejudice shown; failure to narrow dates did not materially affect defense. |
| Jury charges (omitted and given) — mistake of fact, asportation, civil/real property law | Harris: requested charges on mistake of fact, asportation, civil property doctrines | State: mistakes were legal, not factual; pattern theft charge adequately tracked statute; civil theories incorrect | Held: No reversible error — mistake of law not entitled to charge; given instructions were correct and tailored; plain error not shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Short v. State, 234 Ga. App. 633 (court discusses standard for construing evidence in favor of verdict)
- Ruppert v. State, 284 Ga. App. 456 (statutory construction and interpretation of theft scope)
- Doe v. State, 290 Ga. 667 (rule to give words plain and ordinary meaning in statutory construction)
- Smith v. State, 172 Ga. App. 356 (intent to use property temporarily can support theft)
- Henry v. State, 295 Ga. App. 758 (evidence a defendant prevented recording can support deception/theft theories)
- Mincey v. State, 303 Ga. App. 257 (ignorance of law does not excuse criminal intent; intent may be inferred from circumstances)
- Howard v. State, 281 Ga. App. 797 (standard on special demurrer and prejudice inquiry)
- Wicks v. State, 278 Ga. 550 (plain error standard and its high threshold)
- State v. Kelly, 290 Ga. 29 (plain error framework reiterated)
- Taylor v. State, 233 Ga. App. 221 (failure to give mistake-of-fact charge not error where evidence shows mistake of law)