State v. Brown
293 Ga. 493
| Ga. | 2013Background
- On Jan 6, 2011 a Cobb County grand jury returned an indictment against Dwight Brown in Judge Kreeger’s newly constructed courthouse; Brown moved to quash the indictment, alleging it was not returned in "open court."
- The new courthouse was not scheduled to open for regular court business until Jan 10; the Haynes Street entrance was locked and deputies screened/blocked unsponsored entrants during the week of Jan 6.
- Access on Jan 6 required an escort or prior clearance from court personnel or the district attorney; attorneys and reporters gained entry only by being escorted or having relationships with court staff.
- Trial court granted Brown’s motion in abatement and quashed the indictment; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
- The State appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia, arguing federal authority should permit a harmless-error standard and asking the Court to overrule Zugar. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal and declined to overrule Zugar.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Brown) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the indictment was returned "in open court" as required by Georgia law | The facts do not justify quashing; the return was valid despite limited access | The return occurred in a place not open to the general public and is per se injurious | Court: Indictment was not returned in a place open to the public; quash affirmed |
| Whether Zugar's per se rule should be replaced by a harmless-error test | Federal precedent (e.g., Lennick) supports harmless-error review; ask Court to overrule Zugar | Zugar and state precedent protect open-court requirement; per se rule should remain | Court: Declines to overrule Zugar; Georgia precedent remains controlling; harmless-error test rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Sampson v. State, 124 Ga. 776 (establishing long-standing requirement that indictments be returned in open court)
- Zugar v. State, 194 Ga. 285 (open-court means place where court is held open to the public; failure is per se injurious)
- R.W. Page Corp. v. Lumpkin, 249 Ga. 576 (Georgia protects public access to courtrooms more robustly than federal law)
- Purvis v. State, 288 Ga. 865 (discusses reasonable measures to accommodate public attendance)
- United States v. Lennick, 18 F.3d 814 (9th Cir.) (federal case applying harmless-error approach to grand-jury return; relied on by State but not binding in Georgia)
- State v. Brown, 315 Ga. App. 282 (trial-court factual findings and Court of Appeals decision affirming quashment)