*1 taking mortgage. deceive into second Howard Summit Auto Group Clark, motive (2009) (granting summary judgment plaintiffs because failed present any conspiracy that a to defraud evidence them existed inferred). could be “The law does not authorize a merely conspiracy speculative suspicion, exists because of some conspiracy alleged require mere fact that has been does not question submission of the where there is no evidence of (Citation omitted.) support punctuation record the claim.” Id. conspired at 880 Because Howard cannot establish that Lewis Gregorakos against Howard, to commit fraud the trial court granted summary judgment properly Regions in favor of Lewis and conspiracy Bank on Howard’s claim. Judgment Mikell, J., Adams, J., concurs. concurs in the affirmed. only.
judgment Decided March April Reconsideration denied Massey,
DuBose, Evans, DuBose, Blair C. L. & Wilson James appellant. Ford, Sr., Parrish, A. for Jonathan Douglas
Stewart, Frost, Stewart, Palmer, Melvin W. & J. Carr & Emory appellee. Carr, Palmer, Reed, Pitts L. James R.
A10A1917. GREGOIRE THE STATE. Presiding Judge. BARNES, charged aggravated Antonio with one count of battery, aggravated molestation, sexual two counts of child and three boys involving molestation, counts of child who were then two and years guilty aggravated him three old. The found sexual battery aggravated guilty molestation, or either count of appeal, Gregoire all three child molestation counts. On contends that allowing testify court erred witnesses to victims, believed the raising and that his trial counsel was ineffective objecting testimony. line For or not to this the reasons that follow,we affirm the convictions. light
Viewing appeal the evidence most favorable to counts, verdict on the child molestation Brown v. 899) (2008), the evidence trial established that victims this case were two and three when the offenses occurred. Gregoire, uncle, is father who the was 17 the time. The *2 younger boy reported outcry, DFCS that the children had made an to investigation ensued. The father testified that he had asked and this boy boy why being brother, the older responded by moving he was mean to his and the hips saying [Gregoire] his and “This is what younger boy Gregoire put does to me.” The then said had lotion (a buttocks) put his “boo-boo” word he used for his and his “winkie” (a penis) “boo-boo,” word he used for in his and that it had hurt. At boy spontaneously trial, the mother testified that the older told lay top Gregoire put her that had lotion on his buttocks and then on particular, of him. In the mother recounted: pull him The words ... he used was Antonio told to his you pants pull said, said, if down. He no. He don’t them pulled going pull down, I’m to them down. And so Antonio pants put down, him, he laid his and he lotion on and he said wiped wiped top And of him. He on of him. . . . then he it off him off afterwards. boy
The mother testified that when she asked the older to show her just ground “[h]e Gregoire done, did what humping had laid on the younger boy, room, motion.” The who was also told Gregoire me, his mother that “did too.” expert
An in forensic interviews with children testified that the boy younger boy her, did, older did not want to talk to but the jury. boy played The that interview was for the identified his names parts body Gregoire put him, and then said that lotion on expert pointing buttocks, that, to his and that it hurt. conversation, the child corrected when she said something wrong, trying he to be which demonstrated that was signs coaching truthful, and had exhibited none of described.
Finally, police investigator specially
a
interview chil-
trained to
boys
day
boy,
dren
to both
their
care
older
talked
center. The
who
up, pointed
genital
began making
four,
area,
then
his
was
stood
“hunching
hips,
motions”
his
was
related that he
demon-
strating
Gregoire
boy
pull
what
had done to him after he
told
pants.
younger boy,
Gregoire
three,
down his
then
stated that
“put
pointing
stating,
him,
lotion in”
to his buttocks and
“in
my
asked,
winkie?,”
here
bootie.” Then
did he do with
“What
pointed
genital
answered,
to his
area and
“He did
me.”
that on
recordings
played
jury.
Audio
of both interviews were
for the
Gregoire argues
1.
the trial court
reversible
committed
error “when it allowed the State to elicit
on the ultimate
issue
this case on four occasions and when it allowed other
testimony on the ultimate issue.” Because his trial counsel did not
Gregoire
questioning
trial, however,
to this line of
has
right
argue
appeal.
issue on
Machado v.
waived
App. 459,
2.
was
also contends that his trial counsel
ineffective
failing
questions
about whether witnesses believed
prevail
claim,
children or
not. To
an ineffectiveness
performance
must
defendant
establish that counsel’s
deficient
prejudicial
that the
to his
deficient
defense.
*3
Washington,
v.
“[T]he ineffectiveness, the both prejudice prongs, question subject mixed of law fact. . . is a independent appellate Suggs to review court.” the 347) (2000). 85, 87 We will affirm a trial court’s findings they determinations unless are factual clearly erroneous. Id. at 88 prove performance, To deficient a defendant must rebut the strong presumption within that trial counsel’s conduct fell the broad range professional reasonable conduct. Robinson 313) (2003). strategy, no 75, 76 “Trial tactics and matter grounds hindsight, adequate are how mistaken almost never for patently trial counsel ineffective unless are so unrea attorney competent that no chosen them.” sonable would have (Punctuation omitted.) Gray and footnote hearing explained Here, trial at the for new trial counsel motion she and her never find a these children to that present client could reason for intentional,
an lie cousin’s actions. malicious about their plausible explanation why the defense no the Because uncovered angry defendant, would be defense was children built very young susceptible the theme to around telling that misconstruing dire, stories and the facts. From voir when jurors experience potential if asked had counsel closing argument gave example toddlers, when counsel of a says actually just child who her mother her when the mother was left present picking up, strategy her was to a theme late unintentionally. lying the children this case were that did Trial counsel also testified that the victims’ mother not want prosecute defendant, son, who was her sister’s and that ability, try expected “to counsel the mother the best of her to be helpful Gregoire.” did Mr. The mother testified she not call the police outcry when the children first made an because nephew jail. going him her and she was concerned about She happened.” “[I]t’s help continued, it, he if it a disease and needs point mother It was that the State asked whether the believed “I to; have son, replied, to her older and she anything happened did not believe I’m his mother.” Then asked she subsequently why well, the son, that she was his mother as mother younger her given “me younger just saying son was thought she responded his first, continuing then coerced his father into too” at and was story. if mother cross-examination, trial counsel asked the she
On happened, that she was not sure anything remembered DFCS telling older said, son, son. As to her yes, younger and she regarding had to him because she was his again that she believe made mother, not have age up a child could thought if she would that a child could agree Counsel then asked story. situation, but intentionally lying interpreting misconstrue agree she could not in this incorrectly. responded facts While she defense, situation, continued theme question up small children sometimes make stories. *4 trial that the mother hearing,
At the new trial
counsel recalled
as counsel had
Gregoire,
was
to
that she testified
“very sympathetic”
would,
successfully
and that counsel
established
anticipated
her
story.
as to
doubts about
child’s
Counsel
younger
evidence
police
interviewer
and the
officer
investigating
asked
forensic
in
cases involving
abuse
dangers
suggestive questioning
about
children,
day
and
interviews of the children at
care
the recorded
Further,
strategy
with such
must
replete
questions.
center
successful,
jury acquitted
been at
because the
partially
have
least
charges
battery
of the
serious
sexual
Gregoire
aggravated
more
molestation,
on the
and
convicted
three
aggravated
only
and
child
molestation
counts.
hearing
The trial
made a factual
finding
court
testified
object
decision not
to
when a witness
about
counsel’s
trial strategy,
statement was not an unreasonable
believing
child’s
most
noted that
of the
serious
jury acquitted Gregoire
it is clearly
We
affirm that
factual
unless
charges.
must
erroneous,
(4),
conclude
review, the trial court did not err in performance Accordingly, was we affirm the not ineffective. convic- tions. Judgment Smith, J., Dillard, JJ., P. Blackwell and affirmed. Phipps, specially. Miller, J., J., P. P. concur and
concur. concur McFadden, J., dissents. Presiding Judge, concurring fully specially.
PHIPPS,
fully
Gregoire
I
in
concur
waived the contention set forth
majority.
specially
majority’s
I
Division
concur
Gregoire
determination Division that
has failed to show revers-
ible error
the trial court’s conclusion that he was not entitled to a
upon
new trial based
his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. To
prevail
pursuant
claim,
on an ineffectiveness
to Strickland v. Wash-
ington,3
performance
a defendant must establish that counsel’s
prejudicial
deficient and that the deficient
to his
majority
defense.4The
has determined that the trial court did not err
(and
concluding
performance component
that the
was not met
prejudice component).
thus did not reach the
Because I believe that
performance compo-
the record shows that
satisfied the
prejudice component,
separately.
I
nent, but not the
write
*5
Gregoire complains, specifically, that his trial counsel failed to
object
to four cited instances which he claims the state elicited
credibility
boys,
that bolstered the
of the two
B. C. and his
younger
by Gregoire
brother B. T. The first instance cited
occurred
boys’
prosecutor
direct examination of the
mother. The
asked
telling
you
any
her, “Did
have
reason not to believe what B. C. was
you?”
my
answered, “No,
She
he’s
child.” The second instance
(2) (a) (675
613) (2009) (not
See,
State,
752,
e.g.,
App.
Ellison v.
296 Ga.
SE2d
objecting
thought
to
officer
he had more evidence than existed is reasonable trial
show
552) (2008) (not
State,
570,
strategy); Al-Attawy
App.
objecting
v.
289 Ga.
waiting
impeach
strategy); Hargrove
to
on cross-examination is reasonable trial
(4) (a) (657
282) (2008) (failure
363,
App.
object
bolstering by social
289 Ga.
367-368
to
to
thought
strategy,
worker was trial
where counsel
victim rather than social worker was the
witness,”
victim);
“key
probable
impeach
and believed it
he could
Lindo
278 Ga.
(4) (b) (628
665) (2006) (not
waiting
impeach
objecting
236-237
to
on cross
(2) (c) (612
916) (2005)
strategy);
is effective
Powell
(failure
strategy;
identity).
to
to
trial
defense was mistaken
674) (1984).
occurred on redirect examination “Okay. you happened [B. C.]?” And do believe it asked the mother: my responded, to; “I I have I’m his mother.” The She believe child. of B. T.’s The third instance occurred on redirect examination father. you prosecutor asked, reason not believe what “And do have you day?” [B. T] telling answered, “No, He C. and B. were by Gregoire occurred on at all.” And the fourth instance cited protective services investi- redirect examination of the DFCS prosecutor [the gator assigned mother] asked, The “And did to the case. say anything regards she believed the disclo- whether responded, “She that she sure from her children?” He stated believed her children.” credibility expert, witness,
“A never bolster the even an can telling is the truth. another witness as to whether the witness Credibility beyond jurors but, is not the ken of the to the a witness contrary, solely province jury.”5 within the is a matter “ Accordingly, [testimony that another witness believes the victim impermissibly of the victim.”6 The trial court bolsters any objection request for curative measure attributed the lack by Gregoire’s lawyer strategy. Gregoire’s lawyer trial When trial hearing why objected, new she had not was asked at the responded, theory “[P]art of our sort of of the case was that these necessarily lying. young weren’t But that were so at they they may saying things time, not have been really true, to be but in fact weren’t believed weren’t lawyer gave explanation regarding no accurate.” objecting testimony bolstering boys’ credibility how not strategy. such advanced component. majority 1. has determined that Performance hearing
the “trial court made a factual
at the
that counsel’s
believing
decision not to
when a witness testified about
strategy.”
child’s statement was not an unreasonable trial
majority
“applying
‘clearly
concludes,
thus
erroneous’ standard
concluding
review,
to our
the trial court did not err in
that trial
majority
Further,
was not ineffective.”
“strategy
partially
states that trial counsel’s
must have been at least
*6
jury acquitted Gregoire
successful, because the
of the more serious
charges.”
following
agree
majori-
reasons,
For the
I cannot
ty’s analysis,
resulting
prejudice
nor with the
outcome that
component
inquiry
of the ineffectiveness
need not be addressed.
5
(3) (b) (651
661) (2007) (citation
557,
Manzano v.
282 Ga.
560
SE2d
omitted).
punctuation
6
258)
(1999),
grounds,
Buice v.
239 Ga.
55
SE2d
affirmed on other
(528
(2000).
315 ‘ Washington in both The Court Strickland v. instructed: prejudice components inquiry of the ineffectiveness questions Suggs are law mixed and fact.”7 And as reiterated in v. question including perfor-
State,8 ineffectiveness, “the both the prejudice prongs, question mance and is a mixed of law and fact.”9 [that] accept findings standard, “Under we the trial court’s factual clearly erroneous, determinations unless but we “[T]he independently apply legal principles to the facts.”10 clearly applies solely erroneous standard to the trial factual court’s findings legal and ... we owe no deference to the trial court’s Contrary underpinnings majority’s to the conclusions.”11 “[wjhether analysis, attorney’s an trial are is a tactics reasonable question law, not fact.”12 Gregoire’s majority by accepting, has resolved as contention Gregoire’s lawyer employed type matter,
a factual trial some — strategy. merely invoking “strategy” But the word or “tactics” strategy if even there is evidence to show that defensive or some employed automatically tactics were “does not trial immunize against strategic counsel a claim that a decision maneuver tactical attorney competent was an unreasonable one no would have made Nothing supports under the same in the record a circumstances.”13 conclusion that trial counsel’s failure to to four instances of plainly impermissible testimony essentially that bolstered what was competent the crux of the state’s case was “a reasonable decision a attorney would have made under the same circumstances.”14 majority explain, Gregoire’s does not nor did trial counsel even claim, failure was decision made advancement strategy employed. of a provides support majority crediting
Moreover,
no
record
guilty
counsel
the not
verdicts returned
jury. “[Ajppellate
speculate why
know and
courts cannot
should not
jury acquitted
on one offense and convicted on another offense. The
[lack
evidence,]
reason
be
error
could
of sufficient
an
7
(IV).
Washington, supra
Strickland
698
8
(526
316 lenity.”15 compromise, mistake, or it could be consideration
its “imprudent way, thus and unworkable” it is another Stated speculate guilty verdict factors extent, a not whether, and to what of counsel.16 assistance claim of ineffective into a defendant’s Gregoire’s applicable tests, the record shows Viewed under curative measure or otherwise seek failure to trial counsel’s performance.17Therefore, to deficient court amounted from the trial prejudice component majority, contrary I believe that the to the inquiry must be addressed. the ineffectiveness Prejudice component. 2. appropriate test set forth the Court
The Strickland determining prejudice: must show that “The defendant probability that, but for counsel’s a reasonable there is unprofessional proceeding would errors, the result of the probabil- probability is a A reasonable been different. have ity in the outcome.”18 confidence to undermine sufficient trial is Subjected that a new test, record fails to show to this warranted. repeatedly analyzing presented here, court has the issue jury evidence, than the other whether the
considered testimony, credibility person(s) from which it could assess jury in this such evidence did have The record shows that issue.19 remained consistent acts accounts of case. The (as T),B. interviewer father, to a forensic mother, to B. T.’s their presented jury police investigator. video with a and to the recordings of recording audio interview, as well as B. T.’s forensic investigator. police boys’ separate And before interviews both these recordings played, testified as an the forensic interviewer 15 (2) (655 589) (2008) (citation 17, punctuation State, SE2d 283 Ga. 20 Turner v. omitted). generally id. See State, 70, App. 72-73 SE2d Mann v. 252 Ga. (676 Strickland, (2009), supra State, 285, quoting SE2d Miller v. 285 Ga. 694. 30) (2009) (considering See, App. e.g., Carrie v. 298 Ga. credibility and defendant had of victim’s jury form its own assessment was allowed to jury); Al-Attawy credibility 289 Ga. opportunity in front of the to test victim’s 552) (2008) (considering evidence from which had other 573-574 cross-examination); subjected Anderson credibility victim and victim was it could assess 790) (2006) (3) (a) (637 (considering that defendant had grounds, jury), part credibility overruled in on other opportunity in front of the to test victim’s (2007); 809, 811-812, Frazier v. Holsey, n. 1 Schofield App. 568) (2006) (3) (a) (629 (considering its own was allowed to form credibility opportunity victim’s had an to test victim’s and defendant assessment of trial), grounds, Schofield, supra. part on other overruled
317 expert proper improper techniques procedures about and and interviewing ages C.; of children of the B. T. and B. about indicia of credibility, including age developmental factors such as the and levels types language by young children; of describing and about the used expert that, And the B. T.’s abuse.20 sign having the child exhibited no been coached.22 interview,21 points boys young The dissent out that the were at the time jury However, the crimes. the dissent overlooks fact that the presented boys’ specific ages, evidence, and that boys’ ages whether, extent, could assess and to what factored credibility. points boys’ into their credibility The dissent further out that the jury.
was not tested before the But cross-examination Gregoire opportunity dissent overlooks the fact that boys, forgo cross-examine the and chose to At the of the it. outset specifically boys trial, the court whether were asked both available testify prosecutor lawyer at trial. The and confirmed boy Thereafter, available. side called that so neither either as a trial whether to a certain is a witness. decision call witness strategy Gregoire matter of and makes no contention tactics.23 boys given opportunity he was fair that not cross-examine fully explore credibility presence jury; in the does their nor Gregoire lodge any complaint lawyer’s performance his trial that calling boy deficient for stand. “We will not not either speculate arguments [Gregoire’s] behalf; to do would make so improperly change this role from court’s disinterested decision- appellate only conclude, maker to We can from advocate.”24 presented by case, circumstances opportunity had full fair boys’ credibility by cross-examination in front test jury, part strategy tactics, of the do so. but as of his trial elected not to points repeated While the dissent also out that there were bolstering testimony, bright regard- instances of there is no line rule ing any specific Moreover, number of instances. the record reveals only that the four instances of individuals concerned the beliefs of two — — parents. the children’s mother whose complained-of four belief B. C.’s account led to three of the 20 (2006) generally Anthony See 459 (officer’s might people she was trained to look for “certain who be behaviors making any did not false statements” that victim had exhibited those behaviors impermissibly credibility). the victim’s bolster B. C. was not interviewed this individual. Anthony, generally supra. Manriquez v. (2001) (footnote omitted). Pierce v. partly explained on the fact was based belief
instances duty him. to believe felt a his mother and therefore that she was apprised explicitly was thus Because the opinion expressed *9 evaluation of was not an unbiased the mother jury veracity, potential was dimin- influence the its the child’s ished.25 already begun that, while she had
Moreover, mother testified private boys having had told areas and about their talks with inappro- touching they thought anyone was them if to tell her them priately, anyone using specifically to them mentioned she had never top lying private them; had no areas or on their lotion personal they knowledge what known about how could have as to had they that he had not Likewise, B. T.’sfather testified described. had never talked with either child and and bees” talk “birds they anything B. T.’s father what had described. like them about sex before or them talk about he had “never heard testified that anything of that nature.” no reversible error. circumstances, the record shows
Given these complained-of potential for the mother’s above, the As set forth jury credibility opinion Further- was diminished. to influence testimony, jury evidence, than the more, had other credibility. boys’ was it could assess the from which presented recording interview, as well of B. T.’sforensic with a video police boys’ separate recordings with the interviews of both as audio played, recordings investigator. were Before these techniques proper improper expert presented about interviewing young C.; procedures as B. T. and B. as children age including credibility, as the factors such indicia of about types language developmental children; and about the levels of expert describing by young abuse. And used having sign no interview, the child exhibited that, B. T.’s boys’ acts addition, accounts to T.’s coached. been mother, father, B. to a forensic consistent to their remained interviewer neither T), investigator. police (regarding And B. and to the any personal mother nor B. T.’s father young knowledge have known about the children could of how their describing B. C. was demonstrat- and that sexual acts that ing. circumstances, shows that the record
Given these probability that, but for his trial reasonable failed to establish a bolstering testimony, to the cited counsel’s failure to (the diminished, bolstering testimony Al-Attawy, supra impact where of the credibility opinion). bolstering witness retreated from her outcome of would have been different.26
amI authorized state Presiding Miller Judge joins opinion. dissenting. Judge,
McFADDEN, I disagree majority’s with the re- holding peated failures improper bolstering testimony was Instead, reasonable trial as strategy. explained Division concurrence, special those failures perfor- constituted deficient mance, and I join therefore fully special Division I However, concurrence. disagree special concurrence’s further conclusion that the defense was not prejudiced *10 I deficiency. Accordingly, respectfully dissent.
The special concurrence relies on three in its cases of support conclusion that has failed to show a Gregoire reasonable probability that, but trial counsel’s failure to object to four instances of testimony, the outcome of his trial would have been different. But — those three cases Carrie v. 298 Ga. App. 63-64 30) (1) (2009), Al-Attawy 289 Ga. App. 572-574 (657 552) (2008), and Frazier v. 278 Ga. App. (ineffective Strickland, Carrie, supra; supra of assistance counsel claim on based alleged improper bolstering credibility by psychologist of victim’s who victim interviewed failed requisite demonstrated, prejudice jury not
because was where was allowed to form its own credibility, outcry consistent, assessment victim’s victim’s statements had remained opportunity credibility jury); Al-Attawy, supra defendant had to test victim’s in front of the (ineffective alleged bolstering improper assistance counsel claim based on of victim’s credibility by psychologist requisite prejudice victim who interviewed failed because was not demonstrated, victim; credibility where had other evidence from which it could assess witnesses, videotaped jury, outcry state showed statement child’s state called and victim was cross-examination; also, subjected psychologist by discussed various which a indicia assessed, may psychologist’s bolstering testimony disclosure of abuse be retreat from (ineffective Frazier, impact); supra alleged diminished its assistance of counsel claim on based by improper bolstering credibility of victim’s who victim counselor had interviewed failed demonstrated, requisite prejudice not because was where was allowed to form its own credibility; videotaped assessment of victim’s victim’s in statements interview with counselor trial, played during during were outcries, victim’s account sexual abuse remained consistent trial). credibility opportunity during Compare and defendant had an to test victim’s Mann, by shown, supra (requisite prejudice cases cited the dissent: at 73-74 Strickland where only concerning allegations through testimony against evidence defendant came of victim witnesses; outcry yet hinged credibility, testimony case on victim’s victim’s was “far from compelling,” outcry respects, allegations victim’s statements had varied in material victim’s only trouble; family in had arisen after victim himself found victim’s members testified that previously him; people having acknowledged victim had lied about other abused and victim others). wrongdoing that he sometimes blamed on dissent cites also Pointer (682 (1) (2009), by testimony which does not concern a witness upon inappropriate that he she believed the victim and also reverses conviction based an standard of “trial a review: court’s defendant was afforded effective assistance of clearly upheld appeal counsel must be unless erroneous” and “it elsewhere concludes that highly probable testimony counsel’s failure this contributed to the Suggs, supra at verdict.” But see (a) (2006), part in on other overruled 56) (2007) Holsey,
grounds, Ga. 809 are Schofield distinguishable cases, case. In all three the child from the instant significantly than toddlers involved older victims all at and their case, those older victims trial fully during Carrie, defense counsel. tested cross-examination supra supra supra Al-Attawy, Moreover, 64; 574; Frazier, at 691. at at improper repeated not instances of three cases did involve those only supra, Carrie, In there was one state witnesses. six-day improper during with two dozen witnesses. statement single Al-Attawy, supra com- Likewise, 573-574, there was a bolstering, from retreated on cross- which witness ment supra diminishing impact.” Frazier, examination, its And “thus responses of “two 691, the contested consisted multiple two-day wit- occurred the course of nesses.” aged alleged case, victims were two and three the instant accusing they their statements of molest-
at the time made expert ing testified, As forensic interviews of them. the state’s own young very they are difficult because have short such spans, they do understand abstract ideas and are attention susceptible suggestion. mother The children’s own even testified *11 might copying thought younger that the have been that she say might he have been he had his older brother and that what heard by But neither of the children testified at coerced trial, his father. because was not tested on cross-examination before the their credibility solely jury. Rather, was left to determine their listening taped by hearing interviews and the state’s their I do the children’s out-of-court statements. not the witnesses recount fault making strategic party call either for decision not to contrary, testify live. On the I assume those decisions evidence, as on sound evaluations of the as well were founded difficulty predicting age say. will of children this Those evalu- what importance third-party case further illuminate the of ations single bolstering testimony. among Moreover, of unlike the instance supra, twenty-four Carrie, the five witnesses of witnesses who bolstering testimony improper case, in this the state elicited testified from them, of its three of and did so near the end examinations of of those witnesses. each App. Here, 70, Ga. as in Mann v.
(2001), in which we reversed a conviction due to counsel’s ineffective testimony, only linking failure to evidence alleged accused to the crimes arose from statements guilt overwhelming, The victims. evidence depended credibility of the See id. at the state’s case on the victims. (682 (1) 362) (2009). Pointer 74; 249, circumstances, Under these considering the combined effect Schofield, errors, 1, n. supra Gregoire “has his showing met burden of a reasonable probability the result have would been different if the [improper bolstering Ward credibility] victims’ had not been allowed. [Cit.]” (b) reversal Accordingly, Mann, required. is supra.
Decided March April
Reconsideration denied C.
James Wyatt, for appellant. Faulk, T. Joseph Campbell, District D. Attorney, Shelly Assistant Attorney, District appellee. ASSOCIATION,
A10A1955. THE INC. LANDINGS v. WILLIAMS et al. CLUB, THE
A10A1956. LANDINGS INC. v. WILLIAMS et al. Chief Judge.
Ellington, (collec- action, In this the estate and heirs of Gwyneth Williams tively, “the seek to recover from appellees”) damages the owners lagoon where Williams was killed allegedly by large alligator. The State Court of Chatham denied in County part motion filed owners of the summary judgment joint lagoon, (“the association”) Landings Association, Inc. Landings *12 (“the club”).1 Club, Inc. We filed granted applications owners”) association the club “the for an interlocu- (collectively, appeal ruling. from that We have consolidated the association’s tory A10A1955, appeal, Case No. and the club’s Case No. appeal, A10A1956, for disposition.
The owners contend are entitled to as a judgment matter of law under premises both nuisance theories of liability addition, that, recovery. the owners contend under the doctrine of naturae, animals ferae is responsible landowner harm caused a free wild animal the owner’s land. For the reasons below, we affirm in explained part and reverse part. order, granted summary judgment In the court same in favor of owners as 51-2-7, appellees’ §
to the claim under OCGA as discussed below.