In Re Af, 510 S.E.2d 910 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). · Go Syfert
Search
In Re Af, 510 S.E.2d 910 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“ordinary hearsay testimony is not only inadmissible but wholly without probative value”
87 citation events (81 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Adams v. State (gactapp, 2009-10-02)
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999 2012 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Adams v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2009 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
ordinary hearsay testimony is not only inadmissible but wholly without probative value
examined Cited as authority (rule) Brian Herbert Wynn v. State (4×) also: Cited "see"
Ga. Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
In support, the and after the damage occurred); Leeks v. State, 281 Ga. App. 274, 275 (2) ( 635 SE2d 878 ) (2006) (noting that a repair estimate that the defendant relied on to establish a conflict in the evidence was inadmissible hearsay); In the Interest of A. F., 236 Ga. App. 60, 60-61 (1) ( 510 SE2d 910 ) (1999) (holding that the victim’s testimony as to an estimate she was given for the cost to repair a damaged van was inadmissible hearsay, which was insufficient to prove the value required to support a conviction for criminal damage to property in the second degree); Cardwell v. State,…
examined Cited as authority (rule) Wynn v. State (4×) also: Cited "see"
Ga. Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
T ., 285 Ga. App. at 466 (2), 646 S.E.2d 523 (same); In the Interest of A. F ., 236 Ga. App. at 61 (2), 510 S.E.2d 910 (same); see also Hill v. State , 259 Ga. App. 363 , 365 (1), 577 S.E.2d 61 (2003) (holding that the trial court did not err in reducing a defendant's conviction for second-degree criminal damage to property to criminal trespass to property when the State failed to prove damage in excess of $500).
examined Cited as authority (rule) In the Interest of J. T. (5×) also: Cited "see"
Ga. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
In the Interest of A. F., supra at 61 (2).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Leeks v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
In the Interest of A. F., 236 Ga. App. 60, 61 (1) ( 510 SE2d 910 ) (1999).
discussed Cited "see" In Re JS (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See In the Interest of A.F., supra, 236 Ga.App. at 61(2), 510 S.E.2d 910 . (c) Theft by taking of Alcala's property.
discussed Cited "see" In the Interest of M. M. (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See In the Interest of A. F., 236 Ga. App. 60 (1) ( 510 SE2d 910 ) (1999).
discussed Cited "see" In Re Mm (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See In the Interest of A.F., 236 Ga.App. 60 (1), 510 S.E.2d 910 (1999). [6] See Jones v. State, 236 Ga.App. 716 -717(1), 513 S.E.2d 254 (1999); Mallory v. State, 164 Ga.App. 569, 570 (2), 298 S.E.2d 290 (1982); see also B.L. v. State of Ga., 156 Ga.App. 14 , 274 S.E.2d 67 (1980). [7] OCGA § 16-7-24(a). [8] See In the Interest of D.L.S., 224 Ga.App. 660, 661 (1), 482 S.E.2d 418 (1997). [9] See McClendon v. State, 264 Ga.App. 174, 177 (2)(b), 590 S.E.2d 189 (2003); Weldon v. State, 262 Ga.App. 854 -855(1), 586 S.E.2d 741 (2003). [10] See McClendon, supra. Neither party disputes that the Glennvi…
discussed Cited "see" Wiseley v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See In the Interest of A. F., 236 Ga. App. 60 ( 510 SE2d 910 ) (1999); compare Spann v. State, 250 Ga. App. 354, 355 ( 551 SE2d 755 ) (2001) (cost of an item may be suf ficient to show value of damages to everyday items if coupled with other evidence showing the before and after condition of the item).
discussed Cited "see" Hill v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See In the Interest of A. F., 236 Ga. App. 60, 61 (2) ( 510 SE2d 910 ) (1999).
discussed Cited "see" In the Interest of C. D. E. (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See In the Interest of A. F., 236 Ga. App. 60 -61 (1) ( 510 SE2d 910 ) (1999).
examined Cited "see" Prater v. State (4×)
Ga. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See In the Interest of A. F., 236 Ga. App. 60 (2) ( 510 SE2d 910 ) (1999); Donaldson v. State, 222 Ga. App. 532 ( 474 SE2d 722 ) (1996); Anderson v. State, 215 Ga. App. 426 ( 451 SE2d 103 ) (1994); Barnett v. State, 204 Ga. App. 491 ( 420 SE2d 43 ) (1992); Hogan v. State, 193 Ga. App. 543 (1) ( 388 SE2d 532 ) (1989); Choate v. State, 158 Ga. App. 8 ( 279 SE2d 459 ) (1981).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In Re JT
Ga. Ct. App. · 2007 · signal: compare · confidence low
We note that in both these cases, the property owner stated the bases for his opinions as to value. [8] See Waldrop v. State, 231 Ga.App. 164, 165 , 498 S.E.2d 337 (1998); Johnson v. State, 156 Ga.App. 411, 412-413 (2), 274 S.E.2d 778 (1980). [9] Jennings v. State, 226 Ga.App. 461 , 486 S.E.2d 693 (1997). [10] In the Interest of M.M., 265 Ga.App. 381 , 382(1)(a), 593 S.E.2d 919 (2004); Compare Matthews v. State, 224 Ga.App. 407, 409 (2), 481 S.E.2d 235 (1997). [11] In the Interest of A.F., supra at 61(2), 510 S.E.2d 910 . [12] OCGA § 16-1-6; In the Interest of A.F., supra.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Interest of A.F., a child.
A98A2276.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Jan 20, 1999.
510 S.E.2d 910
McMurray.
Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 86%
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Georgia (1)

[*911] Larry H. Tatum, Norcross, for appellant.

Daniel J. Porter, District Attorney, Dawn H. Taylor, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

McMURRAY, Presiding Judge.

A.F. was adjudicated delinquent after the juvenile court found he committed an act which, had he been an adult, would have supported a conviction for criminal damage to property in the second degree. OCGA § 16-7-23(a)(1). On appeal, he asserts eight enumerations of error which all relate to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the juvenile court's ruling.

1. "In juvenile proceedings, the standard of proof on charges of a criminal nature is the same as that used in criminal proceedings against adults—proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) In the Interest of J.T.M., 200 Ga.App. 636, 637, 409 S.E.2d 256. In order to sustain a "conviction for criminal damage to property in the second degree, the State was required to offer probative evidence which would sufficiently allow the [factfinder] to conclude [A.F.] intentionally caused in excess of $500 damage to the property of another person without that person's consent. OCGA § 16-7-23(a)(1). Our cases detail several proper methods for proving the value of the damage. A lay witness may give her opinion as to that value so long as she states the facts on which she bases her opinion or otherwise shows she had the opportunity to form a correct opinion. Yarber v. State, 144 Ga.App. 781, 242 S.E.2d 372 (1978). The cost of an item, so long as it is coupled with other evidence of its condition before and after the damage, may allow the [factfinder] to determine the value of [the] damage to everyday items. Id. Compare Pate v. State 158 Ga.App. 395, 396(2), 280 S.E.2d 414 (1981) (evidence of cost or purchase price alone is insufficient). Evidence of the cost to repair an item may also suffice. Holbrook v. State, 168 Ga.App. 380(1), 381, 308 S.E.2d 869 (1983)." Bereznak v. State, 223 Ga.App. 584(1), 478 S.E.2d 386.

In this case, the only evidence of damage in excess of $500 was the victim's testimony that she obtained an estimate to repair her van in the amount of $605 from "the dealer." She acknowledged that the damage to her van was not repaired for this price. The victim's testimony about the repair estimate she obtained was inadmissible[*912] hearsay. In the Interest of J.C., 163 Ga.App. 822(1), 296 S.E.2d 117. Since this hearsay was the only evidence establishing the amount of damage to the victim's van, A.F.'s adjudication of being delinquent for committing an act which would have supported a conviction for the offense of criminal damage to property in the second degree were he an adult must be vacated. Curtis v. State, 190 Ga.App. 173, 175(2), 378 S.E.2d 516. The failure of A.F.'s counsel to object to the victim's hearsay testimony does not alter this conclusion. "`Since ordinary hearsay testimony is not only inadmissible but wholly without probative value, its introduction without objection does not give it any weight or force whatever in establishing a fact.' [Cits.]" Duke v. State, 205 Ga. 106, 110, 52 S.E.2d 455. See also Calhoun v. State, 213 Ga.App. 375, 376(4)(a), 444 S.E.2d 405.

2. The evidence is sufficient to support an adjudication of delinquency for committing an act which would support a conviction for the offense of criminal trespass to property under OCGA § 16-7-21(a) were he an adult. This is a lesser offense included within criminal damage to property in the second degree. Jennings v. State, 226 Ga. App. 461, 486 S.E.2d 693. Consequently, we remand with direction that an adjudication of being delinquent and a disposition thereof be entered for committing an act which would have supported a conviction for the offense of criminal trespass to property were he an adult. Hogan v. State, 193 Ga.App. 543(1), 388 S.E.2d 532; Choate v. State, 158 Ga.App. 8, 279 S.E.2d 459. This result does not violate A.F.'s due process right to be notified of the charges against him. "A defendant is on notice of ... lesser crimes which are included in the crime charged as a matter of law, OCGA § 16-1-6...." McCrary v. State, 252 Ga. 521, 524, 314 S.E.2d 662.

3. A.F. next contends the evidence was insufficient to support his adjudication of being a delinquent because the State's case was based on the uncorroborated testimony of an alleged accomplice. "In numerous decisions our courts have held that corroboration of an accomplice is not necessary to sustain a misdemeanor conviction." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Dabney v. State, 154 Ga.App. 355(2), 268 S.E.2d 408. Since we have vacated A.F.'s adjudication of delinquency for acts which would constitute a felony, were he an adult, this enumeration is without merit. OCGA § 16-7-21(d).

4. We find no merit in A.F.'s remaining enumerations of error.

Judgment vacated and case remanded with direction.

BLACKBURN and ELDRIDGE, JJ., concur.