State v. Morrow, 300 Ga. 403

Morrow, a paraprofessional at River Ridge High School, accompanied and attended to a student with special needs and sometimes accompanied that student to class where P.M., a 16-year-old student, was also enrolled.
In December 2010 Morrow and P.M. met outside school and had sexual contact; Morrow was charged under OCGA § 16-6-5.1(b)(1).
A Cherokee County jury convicted Morrow; the Court of Appeals reversed, holding the State failed to prove Morrow had specific supervisory or disciplinary authority over P.M.
The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether supervisory or disciplinary authority under the statute may be shown generally or must be specific, and whether a paraprofessional qualifies as a “teacher.”
The Supreme Court concluded the State may prove supervisory or disciplinary authority by either general or specific evidence, and there was evidence of some limited general authority over students in P.M.’s class.
The Court nevertheless reversed Morrow’s conviction because the State failed to prove Morrow was a “teacher, principal, assistant principal, or other administrator” as required by OCGA § 16-6-5.1(b)(1); a paraprofessional is not a “teacher.”

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether supervisory or disciplinary authority under OCGA § 16-6-5.1(b)(1) must be specific to the victim	State: authority may be shown generally or specifically; general authority suffices	Morrow: State must prove direct/specific authority over the victim	Held: Authority may be proven by either general or specific supervisory or disciplinary power; evidence of limited general authority over P.M. was sufficient
Whether a paraprofessional qualifies as a “teacher” under OCGA § 16-6-5.1(b)(1)	State: Morrow functioned as an educator and thus is a teacher for statute	Morrow: paraprofessional is distinct from teacher; not covered by the statute	Held: "Teacher" does not include paraprofessionals; State failed to prove Morrow was a person covered by (b)(1); conviction vacated
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing based on alleged insufficiency of supervisory-authority evidence	State: Court of Appeals misread precedent and required specificity	Morrow: Court of Appeals properly applied precedent	Held: Court of Appeals erred on that ground because general supervisory authority can suffice
Whether statutory construction permits courts to expand covered persons beyond listed categories	State: statutory language should be read to include educators broadly	Morrow: statute’s specific listing limits its application	Held: Court will not judicially expand the statutory categories; legislature may amend if it intends broader coverage

Randolph v. State, 269 Ga. 147 (recognizes supervisory or disciplinary authority may be general)
Whitehead v. State, 295 Ga. App. 562 (shows conviction where defendant had direct supervisory control over student)
Groves v. State, 263 Ga. App. 828 (illustrates direct supervisory control in classroom/related programs)
State v. Hammonds, 325 Ga. App. 815 (discusses limits of assistant-coach authority to a subset of students)
Hart v. State, 319 Ga. App. 749 (Court of Appeals decision that the Supreme Court overrules to the extent it treated paraprofessionals as teachers)
May v. State, 295 Ga. 388 (addresses reporting obligations but cited for related factual disclosure issues)