State v. JohnsonState v. Johnson
- Reporters:
- , , ,
- Before:
- Smith
This аppeal presents the issue of whether venue may be laid in Fulton County for charges of violating
Johnson was charged in Fulton County on a 66-count indictment involving the crimes of false statements and false swearing. The charges stemmed from Johnson’s operation of a driver improvement clinic in Lakeland in Lanier County for persons convicted of DUI. Regulated by the Georgia Department of Human Resources, the school issued certificates of cоmpletion for students who completed certain courses. The students submitted the certificates to thе Department of Public Safety to apply for driver’s license reinstatement.
The indictment alleged thаt Johnson issued certificates of completion to some students who paid her but did not attend or cоmplete the mandated course and that she sent the documentation to the State as though the student had properly met the requirements. For each of twenty-two students, the indictment charged Johnson with threе different crimes: using a false statement in a matter within the jurisdiction of a department of the State (
The State concеdes that the trial court was correct in placing venue in Lanier County with regard to the charges of false swearing. It challenges only the trial court’s ruling with regard to the 44 counts of false statements. As to those charges, the State contends the trial court erred in ruling that venue was improper in Fulton County. The State аrgues that even though the false statements were made in Lanier County, it charged Johnson only with using the false statements, and the use occurred in Fulton County. We do not agree.
First, the statute lists three ways in which the crime may be committed: if one “knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a matеrial fact; makes a false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or makes or uses any false writing or document, knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or еntry, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of state government.”
Second, the Stаte is attempting to “manufacture” venue in Fulton County. We condemned such artificially created venuе in McCarty v. State, 152 Ga. App. 726 (1) (263 SE2d 700) (1979). In McCarty, Muscogee County law enforcement officers negotiated a drug “deal” with McCarty in Sumter County, where McCarty was in possession of the drugs. At the direction of the officers, he then loaded the contraband in thе trunk of the officers’ car and accompanied them to Muscogee County, where he was arrested and charged. This Court reversed on the ground that the officers had maneuvered McCarty into Muscogеe County simply for the purpose of obtaining venue. “[B]y their own acts, law enforcement officials created the events conferring venue in Muscogee County. . . . This they cannot do.” Id. at 727 (1).
Although the facts in this case are less extreme, they are nonetheless analogous. Johnson did not “use” the statements within the mеaning of the statute. The State required her to send the documents to Fulton County; sending them to Fulton County was of no “use” tо Johnson. Permitting the State to lay venue in Fulton County *838would lead to an “appearance of abuses, if not to abuses, in the selection of what may be deemed a tribunal favorable to the proseсution.” United States v. Johnson, 323 U. S. 273, 275 (65 SC 249, 89 LE 236) (1944).
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, “ £[t]he constitutional and statutory law of this State require that all criminal cases be tried in the county where the crime was committed unless otherwise providеd by law. Art. VI, Sec. II, Par. VI, Ga. Const. of 1983;
Judgment affirmed.
McMurray, P. J, and Beasley, J., concur.
Notes
We note that the appellant in Spray v. State was represented by the same counsel who represents appellee here.