Harrison v. State
313 Ga. App. 861
Ga. Ct. App.2012Background
- Harrison was charged with felony obstruction of a law enforcement officer by offering violence, misdemeanor obstruction, and interference with government property; jury convicted on the obstruction and interference charges, with amended motion for new trial denied.
- Deputies attempted to arrest Harrison at his home for probation violation; after failure at home, they found him at a pool and informed him of arrest.
- Harrison asked to put on clothes; after dressing, he bolted, struggled with deputies in/near the pool, and fled through a gate.
- The struggle led to the deputy’s damaged cell phone and walkie-talkie, claimed as government property damaged during obstruction.
- Trial court charged proximate cause for the interference with government property offense; evidence included the pool incident and damage to equipment.
- Harrison asserted ineffective assistance of counsel and challenged the admissibility of probation-arrest context and certain photos; these arguments were rejected on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proximate cause standard for interference with government property | Harrison argues proximate cause does not apply to this offense. | State argues proximate cause applies as the reasonably probable consequence of resisting arrest. | proximate cause applies; no error in charge. |
| Admission of arrest-for-probation evidence (res gestae) | Evidence of probation violation and arrest warrant is improper character evidence. | Evidence explains why officers went to residence and is relevant to defendant's intent. | Evidence admissible; no error in denial of in limine. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (witness handling) | Counsel failed to object to certain testimony/photos damaging to defense. | Strategic decisions supported by trial strategy; not deficient performance. | No deficient performance; trial strategy supported effectiveness. |
| Ineffective assistance—witness selection and cross-examination tactics | Different trial tactics could have changed outcome. | Tactics are strategic and routinely unchallengeable. | Counsel’s decisions were strategic; no Strickland error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pitts v. State, 253 Ga.App. 373 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002) (proximate cause sufficiency in homicide context; reasonably probable consequence)
- Edwards v. State, 255 Ga.App. 269 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002) (interference with government property; mirror damaging car case; direct/indirect consequence)
- State v. Jackson, 287 Ga. 646 (Ga. 2010) (proximate cause standard in criminal cases)
- Burke v. State, 274 Ga.App. 402 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005) (statutory interpretation; alignment with existing law)
- Jones v. State, 268 Ga.App. 246 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004) (evidentiary classification; res gestae relevance)