Yancey v. the State
342 Ga. App. 294
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- William T. Yancey, a former Montgomery County investigator, was indicted for second-degree burglary for entering Sheriff Ladson O’Connor’s office the night O’Connor died and allegedly removing items.
- Yancey was not given pre-grand-jury notice nor allowed to appear before the grand jury; he moved to quash the indictment on statutory-notice grounds under OCGA §§ 17-7-52 and 45-11-4.
- Factual record at the quash hearing: chaotic manhunt response that night, evidence Yancey was assisting the investigation at an on‑scene command post, testimony that Yancey had left a Lowery case file in O’Connor’s office earlier, and security-video footage (a copy) showing people leaving the office carrying a safe and later papers.
- The trial court denied the motion to quash, concluding the statutes did not protect Yancey because the alleged conduct (burglary) was outside the performance of official duties.
- The State played Yancey’s GBI interview (he stated impaired memory from pain medication) and introduced a copy of the surveillance video; Yancey challenged the admissibility of the copied video at the hearing.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed de novo and reversed the trial court, holding that statutory notice/appearance protections applied and that admission of the copied video was within the trial court’s discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Yancey) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OCGA §§ 17-7-52 and 45-11-4 required pre-grand-jury notice and an opportunity to appear | Yancey: He was on-call and assisting the investigation that night, so the alleged acts occurred while performing official duties and triggered statutory protections | State: Burglary is outside performance of official duties; therefore statutes do not apply | Reversed: Statutes apply because evidence supported that Yancey was acting in furtherance of investigatory duties that night |
| Whether an officer who commits a crime while on duty is categorically excluded from statutory protections | Yancey: Not categorical; performance-of-duty inquiry is fact-specific | State: Commission of burglary steps aside from duties and negates protection | Court: Not categorical; prior cases distinguish duty-related misconduct from stepping aside to commit crimes; here facts favor protection |
| Admissibility of a copied surveillance video at the quash hearing | Yancey: Copy should be excluded; foundation and original not produced; witness (Young) didn’t testify | State: Dykes who recorded the phone feed laid sufficient foundation for the copy | Affirmed: Trial court did not abuse discretion; copy admissible and foundational testimony was adequate; provenance and original go to weight |
| Remedy for statutory violation (if found) | Yancey: Quash indictment for failure to provide statutory notice and opportunity | State: No violation because statutes inapplicable | Result: Indictment quashed; reversal of trial court order denying motion to quash |
Key Cases Cited
- Wiggins v. State, 280 Ga. 268 (court reviews application of statutes protecting officers where alleged acts occurred during duty)
- Mize v. State, 152 Ga. App. 190 (officer’s criminal acts not protected when conduct was personal and unrelated to duties)
- State v. Galloway, 270 Ga. App. 184 (officers committing violent offenses not entitled to statutory grand-jury protections)
- Brannon v. State, 298 Ga. 601 (standard for admissibility of unmanned-camera videotapes)