In Re Ha
706 S.E.2d 615
Ga. Ct. App.2011Background
- H.A., a sixteen-year-old, was adjudicated delinquent for acts that would be burglary if committed by an adult and appealed the adjudication.
- On July 4, 2009, a first resident reported a blue/turquoise Nissan Quest entering his driveway; a BOLO with vehicle description and tag was issued.
- A second resident reported a break-in with a similar blue/grey vehicle; a BOLO and tag information were issued.
- Police later stopped a minivan matching at least one BOLO description; odor of marijuana and a drug-dog alert led to a search.
- At suppression, defense sought to refresh officer recollection with an audio-dispatch recording; the court refused.
- This Court held the error in refusing refreshing recollection was harmless given substantial independent evidence supporting stop and search.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by not allowing refresh recollection | H.A. argues officer’s memory could be refreshed by dispatch audio. | H.A. cites the objection; court properly refused refreshing. | Error occurred in refusing refresh recollection. |
| Whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt | Harmless error because refresh could affect memory about BOLO details. | Evidence independently supported stop/search; refresh error not prejudicial. | Harmless error; adjudication affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Green v. State, 242 Ga. 261 (1978) (witness may be refreshed by any stimulus if willing)
- Woods v. State, 269 Ga. 60 (1998) (refusal to refresh recollection can be error)
- Lindsey v. State, 282 Ga. 447 (2007) (harmless-error framework for assessment)
- Harper v. State, 300 Ga. App. 757 (2009) (BOLO-based stop and search considerations)
- O'Neal v. State, 288 Ga. 219 (2010) (affirming despite evidentiary error when strong evidence exists)