CHASE v. THE STATE
S09G0139
Supreme Court of Georgia
June 15, 2009
Reconsideration Denied June 30, 2009
285 Ga. 693 | 681 SE2d 116
MELTON, Justice, dissenting.
Under the declaratory judgment act,
As a general rule, “equitable relief is improper if the complainant has a remedy at law which is ‘adequate,’ i.e., ‘as practical and as efficient to the ends of justice and its prompt administration as the remedy in equity.’ ” (Citation omitted.) Sherrer v. Hale, 248 Ga. 793, 797-798 (2) (285 SE2d 714) (1982). The grant of an injunction is such a form of equitable relief. On the other hand, a petition for declaratory judgment is an action at law. VATACS Group, Inc. v. HomeSide Lending, Inc., 281 Ga. 50 (635 SE2d 758) (2006).
In this case, although the City requested both a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, the City proceeded on and the trial court only ruled on the request for permanent injunctive relief. It is a matter of record, therefore, that the trial court granted equitable relief despite the fact that a motion for a declaratory judgment, an adequate remedy at law, was pending at the same time. By longstanding principles, the grant of equitable relief in this situation was improper. See, e.g., Levinson v. Pendley, 209 Ga. 335 (72 SE2d 306) (1952).
I am authorized to state that Presiding Justice Hunstein and Justice Hines join in this dissent.
DECIDED JUNE 15, 2009 —
RECONSIDERATION DENIED JUNE 30, 2009.
Buchanan & Land, Jerry A. Buchanan, Benjamin A. Land, Jones Day, Edward K. Smith, Robin A. Schmahl, for appellant.
SEARS, Chief Justice.
This appeal presents a straightforward question of law. The question is whether, in November 2006, consent of the alleged victim was a defense to the crime of sexual assault of a person enrolled in school. We have concluded that it was, as long as the student had reached the legal age of consent. Accordingly, the trial court erred in preventing the defendant from presenting a consent defense at trial, and we reverse the contrary judgment of the Court of Appeals.
1. In November 2006, 28-year-old Melissa Lee Chase was a highly regarded teacher and coach at Harlem High School in Harlem, Georgia. The alleged victim was a 16-year-old junior, Christy Elaine Garcia. Garcia had been in one of Chase‘s classes the previous year, but by November 2006, she was no longer one of Chase‘s students. Nevertheless, on occasion, Garcia was subject to Chase‘s authority, such as when Chase would be assigned to oversee the cafeteria along with several other teachers during lunch period. In addition, Garcia was expected, as a student at the school, to obey Chase‘s instructions because of Chase‘s position as a member of the faculty.
Between August and November 2006, Garcia and Chase developed a friendship that eventually turned romantic and, on one occasion, sexual. Garcia‘s father and stepmother, with whom Garcia lived, had been letting Garcia spend time with Chase outside regular school hours and had even invited Chase to their house for cookouts. On four or five occasions, Garcia was allowed to spend the night at Chase‘s house. On the last occasion, the relationship between Chase and Garcia became sexual.1 Soon after, Garcia‘s mother found notes in Garcia‘s purse written to Garcia by Chase. Disturbed by their romantic content, Garcia‘s mother contacted the police, and Chase was arrested and charged with sexual assault of a person enrolled in school.
Chase waived her right to a jury trial. At the one-day bench trial, Garcia testified on cross-examination that she initiated the relationship with Chase because she “had feelings for her” and that she was the one who “pushed” the relationship. The State objected on grounds of relevance, arguing that consent of the alleged victim was no defense to a charge of sexual assault of a person enrolled in school under
The Court of Appeals affirmed, agreeing with the trial court that consent is not a defense to the crime of sexual assault of a person enrolled in school under
Did the Court of Appeals err in ruling that subsection (c) (3) of
OCGA § 16-6-5.1 applies to prosecutions under subsection (b) of the statute?
In addition, when we are interpreting a statute, we must presume that the General Assembly had full knowledge of the existing state of the law and enacted the statute with reference to it.9 We construe statutes “in connection and in harmony with the existing law, and as a part of a general and uniform system of jurisprudence,” and “their meaning and effect is to be determined in connection, not only with the common law and the constitution, but also with reference to other statutes and the decisions of the courts.”10
The age of consent in Georgia is 16.11 In other words, generally speaking, it is a crime to have physical sexual contact with a person 15 years of age or younger. The converse is also true. Thus, generally speaking, it is not a crime in Georgia to have physical sexual contact with a willing participant who is 16 years of age or older.12 This is the legal backdrop against which the General Assembly acted when, in early 2006, it repealed the existing version of
The trial court convicted Chase of one count of violating
A probation or parole officer or other custodian or supervisor of another person referred to in this Code section commits sexual assault when he or she engages in sexual contact with another person ... who is enrolled in a school ... and such actor has supervisory or disciplinary authority over such other person.
Conviction under the statute carries a sentence of 10-30 years in prison, but if the student is under 14, the sentencing range
The plain language of the statute does not in any way indicate that the General Assembly intended to remove consent as a defense to a charge of violating subsection (b). The General Assembly knows full well how to eliminate the consent defense when it wishes to do so. Indeed, the General Assembly eliminated consent as a defense to three crimes in the very next subsection of
The trial court reasoned, and the Court of Appeals agreed, that subsection (c) (3)‘s provision eliminating consent of the victim as “a defense to a prosecution under this subsection” removed the consent defense for prosecutions brought under subsection (b) as well. We think not. This “construction” of the statute is not so much judicial interpretation as it is judicial sleight of hand.
The words “[c]onsent of the victim shall not be a defense to a prosecution” in subsection (c) (3) are followed directly by the phrase “under this subsection.” (Emphasis supplied.) Those three words can mean only one thing: the General Assembly intended to eliminate consent as a defense to the crimes created by subsection (c) only. Thus, subsection (c) (3) did not, as the trial court and Court of Appeals reasoned, remove consent of the alleged victim as a viable defense to a charge of sexual assault of a person enrolled in school, because that crime was created by subsection (b) of the statute, not subsection (c).
The District Attorney defends the trial court and Court of Appeals’ interpretive legerdemain on public policy grounds. The District Attorney concedes that a “literal reading” of the statute might allow for a consent defense and acknowledges that “criminal statutes should be strictly construed against the State and in favor of an accused.” Nonetheless, the District Attorney points to the State‘s compelling interest in protecting children and the vulnerable status of students involved in secondary education programs and below and argues that “no court, either trial or appellate, should recognize any kind of ‘consent’ defense to the criminal conduct proscribed by
The District Attorney‘s passion for protecting school-age children is admirable. However, to accept these arguments would be to legislate by judicial fiat, and to do so ex post facto to boot. We will not usurp the General Assembly‘s legislative role by engrafting onto subsection (b) of
The District Attorney‘s argument that we must eliminate the consent defense to sexual assault of a child enrolled in school to avoid absurdity, injustice, or contradictory results founders on the reality that doing so would produce results at least as absurd, unjust, and contradictory, if not more so. If consent
Our refusal to write into
It is no response to the unreasonable results the trial court and Court of Appeals’ construction of the statute would produce to say that prosecutors could exercise their discretion to avoid them. That tells us nothing about what the General Assembly intended when it enacted the statute. The best indicator of the General Assembly‘s intent is the statutory text it actually adopted. As the District Attorney concedes, the plain language of the statute does not eliminate consent as a defense to prosecutions under subsection (b). We agree with the United States Supreme Court‘s recent pronouncement, made in a unanimous decision, that “prosecutorial discretion is not a reason for courts to give improbable breadth to criminal statutes.”14
Judgment reversed. All the Justices concur, except Carley and Thompson, JJ., who dissent.
CARLEY, Justice, dissenting.
The majority remarkably misinterprets
Subsection (c) (3) provides only that “[c]onsent of the victim shall not be a defense to a prosecution under this subsection.” It does not indicate that the irrelevance of consent is limited to “this subsection.” Nor does subsection (c) (3) in any manner imply that consent is a defense to a prosecution under
Subsection (c) was first added to
The majority argues that subsection (c) (3) shows that the General Assembly knows “full well how to eliminate the consent defense when it wishes to do so.” (Majority Opinion, p. 696) Rarely, however, has the legislature explicitly eliminated the defense of consent. Ordinarily, the General Assembly expressly addresses consent only when it has the opposite intent. Thus, in many sections of Chapter 6, the language explicitly makes lack of consent an element of the crime.
The majority states that its “refusal to write into
Although the majority accurately quotes many rules of statutory construction, it fails to apply them correctly, and the result is disturbing. A statute enacted in pertinent part to protect students from exploitation by teachers is now almost useless due to the judicial imposition of a defense of consent, even though consent in these circumstances is commonly obtained by the very exploitation which the statute was designed to prevent. That result is not made any less disturbing by the majority‘s hypothetical application of the statute to a consensual sexual encounter between a 30-year-old law professor and a 50-year-old student. Even that age difference does not eliminate a student‘s vulnerability to exploitation by a person having supervisory or disciplinary authority over such student. In any event, a single hypothetical cannot control the construction of
I am authorized to state that Justice Thompson joins in this dissent.
DECIDED JUNE 15, 2009 —
RECONSIDERATION DENIED JUNE 30, 2009.
Victor Hawk, for appellant.
Daniel J. Craig, District Attorney, Charles R. Sheppard, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.