The State v. Rich.
348 Ga. App. 467
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2019Background
- In 2017 a Cherokee County grand jury indicted Laura Rich on three counts under OCGA § 16-6-5.1(b)(1) for sexual contact with students, alleging she was “a teacher” with supervisory/disciplinary authority.
- Rich was a daily substitute in the school district: held a high school diploma, was not certified by the Professional Standards Commission (PSC), received a daily per diem, and was a classified (non-contracted) employee.
- Daily substitutes in the district are hired from a pool after brief training, assist students with pre-assigned packets, may answer questions if able, and generally have duties that end at the school day’s conclusion.
- Long-term substitutes (absent for >10 days) are expected to perform teacher duties and typically must be PSC-certified; Rich did not qualify as a long-term substitute.
- Rich moved to dismiss/quash arguing she was not a “teacher” under the statute and any supervisory authority ended after school hours; the trial court granted the motion.
- The State appealed, arguing Rich functioned as a teacher due to frequent assignments and reliance by the school; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Rich was not a “teacher” under the statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rich qualified as a “teacher” under OCGA § 16-6-5.1(b)(1) | Rich often accepted assignments and was relied upon, so she should be treated as a teacher | Rich was a daily substitute without PSC certification, no contract, limited duties, and responsibilities ended daily | Rich was not a “teacher” for the statute; indictment properly quashed |
| Whether the statute should be construed broadly to include substitutes without certification | Statue’s plain language includes “teacher” and should encompass those who perform teaching functions | Criminal statutes construed strictly; ambiguity resolved in defendant’s favor; statutory and regulatory definitions distinguish certified teachers | Strict construction adopted; term “teacher” does not reasonably include Rich |
| Whether Rich’s supervisory authority extended beyond school hours (alternative ground) | State implied teacher status could cover off-campus/time conduct | Trial court found daily substitute duties ceased at day’s end; no allegation conduct occurred during school hours | Court affirms on primary ground (not teacher); trial court’s temporal finding unnecessary to reach but was alternative rationale |
| Whether statutory textual/contextual cues support inclusion of substitutes | Legislature used specific terms elsewhere (e.g., "substitute teacher") and did not include them in §16-6-5.1(b)(1) | Omission indicates lawmakers did not intend to cover uncertified substitutes | Court considers legislative usage supportive that "teacher" excludes uncertified substitutes |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hammonds, 325 Ga. App. 815 (criminal statutes construed strictly)
- Smith v. State, 311 Ga. App. 757 (ambiguities resolved in defendant's favor)
- State v. Morrow, 300 Ga. 403 (paraprofessionals/substitutes not necessarily "teachers")
- Perkins v. State, 277 Ga. 323 (criminal statutes read by natural import)
- Vines v. State, 269 Ga. 438 (adopt interpretation most favorable to defendant when statute ambiguous)
- Frix v. State, 298 Ga. App. 538 (rule of strict construction applies to penal statutes)
- Rodriguez v. State, 343 Ga. App. 526 (penal statutes not expanded by implication)
- State v. Lane, 275 Ga. App. 781 (affirm under right-for-any-reason rule)