In the Interest of Q. S.
310 Ga. App. 70
Ga. Ct. App.2011Background
- Q. S., age 15, participated in an attack on a classmate at Washington County High School with two others.
- The juvenile court adjudicated Q. S. delinquent based on acts that adult courts would classify as aggravated battery, aggravated assault, and unlawful disruption of a public school.
- The court ordered restrictive custody for 12 months, after applying OCGA § 15-11-63 (c) factors.
- The State presented evidence suggesting the assault affected a preexisting brain tumor and caused memory loss, but the neurosurgeon testified the tumor’s involvement was uncertain and removal surgery was inevitable regardless of the assault.
- We find the evidence supports aggravated assault but not aggravated battery or unlawful disruption, and we vacate the restrictive custody order due to misapplied, unsupported factual findings.
- Remand is necessary for reconsideration of restrictive custody with properly supported findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of aggravated battery | Q. S. argues the memory loss was not proximately caused by the assault. | State asserts the battery caused loss of brain function. | Aggravated battery not proven beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Sufficiency of aggravated assault | Q. S. contends insufficient proof of aggravated assault. | State contends hands were used to inflict serious harm constituting aggravated assault. | Aggravated assault proven beyond a reasonable doubt; adjudication affirmed for this basis. |
| Unlawful disruption of a public school | Q. S. contends Washington County High School is not a public school; no proof of disruption of a public school. | State argues disruption occurred at a public school through the school’s operation. | Adjudication premised on unlawful disruption reversed. |
| Restrictive custody | Q. S. challenges the discretionary imposition of restrictive custody based on unsupported findings. | State argues the third factor supports restrictive custody due to the assault’s severity. | Trial court abused its discretion; remanded to reconsider with properly supported findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- In the Interest of A. A., 293 Ga. App. 827 (Ga. App. 2008) (sufficiency standard for juvenile delinquency proof)
- In the Interest of J. B., 289 Ga. App. 617 (Ga. App. 2008) (proof of public school status required for disruption charge)
- In the Interest of J. A. L., 284 Ga. App. 220 (Ga. App. 2007) (judicial notice requirements)
- In the Interest of I. C., 300 Ga. App. 683 (Ga. App. 2009) (discretion in restrictive custody decisions)
- State v. Pickett, 288 Ga. 674 (Ga. 2011) (abuse of discretion when legal standards misapplied or facts unsupported)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (sufficiency review standard for criminal evidence)
- Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171 (U.S. 1987) (preponderance requirement for some factual findings)
- Miller v. State, 275 Ga. 730 (Ga. 2002) (brain-injury causation in aggravated battery context)
- Scott v. State, 243 Ga. App. 383 (Ga. App. 2000) (brain injuries and memory loss as aggravating factors)