Intent.

- Requisite intent "to cause or allow physical harm or injury to another person" cannot necessarily be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the placement of a9-1-1 emergency call. A9-1-1 emergency call may involve a request for protection of property or the report of a property crime, and if no personal physical harm or injury is involved, a defendant's act of obstructing or hindering a 9-1-1 call is not a crime under the statute. State v. Harris, 292 Ga. App. 211, 663 S.E.2d 830 (2008).

State not required to show that defendant intended harm to person making call.

- O.C.G.A. § 16-10-24.3 did not require that defendant intend to cause or allow harm to the person hindered from making a9-1-1 call, in this case the victim's friend; it was sufficient that defendant intended harm to the victim. Brown v. State, 288 Ga. 364, 703 S.E.2d 609 (2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 2454, 179 L. Ed. 2d 1221, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 3708 (U.S. 2011).

Sufficiency of accusation.

- Trial court properly granted a defendant's motion in arrest of judgment after the defendant was convicted of obstructing/hindering an emergency telephone call. The accusation did not allege the requisite intent, which could not necessarily be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the placement of a9-1-1 call or from the other counts of the accusation. State v. Harris, 292 Ga. App. 211, 663 S.E.2d 830 (2008).

Evidence sufficient for conviction.

- Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction of obstruction of an emergency telephone call in violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-10-24.3, including the required specific intent to cause or allow physical harm or injury to the victim since: (1) defendant entered the victim's residence screaming and began tearing up the house and destroying the victim's things; (2) the victim testified that the victim was afraid; (3) when the victim attempted to call9-1-1, defendant grabbed the phone, pushed the victim, and snatched the phone from the wall; (4) defendant smashed the telephone to pieces; and (5) the victim was able to complete a9-1-1 call on the victim's cellular telephone only because defendant's mother was holding defendant back, keeping defendant away from the victim. Izzo v. State, 265 Ga. App. 143, 592 S.E.2d 915 (2004).

Evidence was sufficient to support a conviction of interference with a9-1-1 call because the tape of the9-1-1 calls revealed that there were at least eight calls made in rapid succession between the 9-1-1 dispatch center and the victim's residence, in the calls in which the victim actually spoke to the dispatcher, the victim was trying to report defendant and request police protection when the phone call was abruptly interrupted. Pitts v. State, 272 Ga. App. 182, 612 S.E.2d 1 (2005), aff'd, 280 Ga. 288, 627 S.E.2d 17 (2006).

Sufficient evidence supported convictions of aggravated assault, criminal trespass, and obstruction of a9-1-1 call as the defendant became irate after a demand for a refund was denied by a store, a store manager told the defendant to leave, but the defendant refused, when the manager picked up the phone to call9-1-1, the defendant grabbed the phone and slammed the phone on the counter, the defendant pushed the bag of brass plates the defendant was trying to return in the manager's face, cutting the manager, and punched the manager in the face. Hooker v. State, 278 Ga. App. 382, 629 S.E.2d 74 (2006).

Defendant's convictions for robbery, battery, false imprisonment, and obstruction of an emergency telephone call were all upheld on appeal as no error flowed from: (1) the trial court's admission of an audio recording of the attack on the victim and order granting the state two hearings regarding the admissibility of that recording; (2) the trial court's failure to give a curative instruction after the prosecutor injected a personal experience with domestic violence into the closing argument; (3) the trial court's failure to strike the testimony of similar transaction witnesses and issue a curative instruction; and (4) the trial court's order restricting the counsel's closing argument. Ellis v. State, 279 Ga. App. 902, 633 S.E.2d 64 (2006).

Aggravated battery and obstruction or hindering an emergency telephone call convictions were upheld on appeal, despite a change in the victim's story, as the injuries sustained were consistent with the victim's original statements, foundational requirements supported the admission of hearsay statements, the victim's actual written inconsistent statement was properly withheld from the jury, and a mistrial was unwarranted. Buchanan v. State, 282 Ga. App. 298, 638 S.E.2d 436 (2006).

Evidence that showed that during an argument with the victim, the defendant dragged the victim off a couch by the victim's hair and threw a table at the victim, that the victim fled on foot and attempted to make a9-1-1 call, that the defendant pursued the victim in the defendant's truck, reached the victim, and held a knife to the victim, retreating only after another vehicle drove up, was sufficient to convict the defendant of obstruction of a9-1-1 call. Stone v. State, 296 Ga. App. 305, 674 S.E.2d 31 (2009).

Evidence insufficient for conviction.

- Evidence was insufficient to support defendant's conviction for hindering an emergency telephone call when the victim testified that when grabbing the cell phone which defendant broke in half, the victim was not thinking of calling or attempting to call9-1-1, but was looking for something to throw. The victim's prior inconsistent statement about the phone was inadmissible hearsay due to lack of foundation and thus was not substantive evidence. Feagin v. State, 317 Ga. App. 543, 731 S.E.2d 778 (2012).

Conviction reversed due to Sixth Amendment violation.

- Admission of a victim's statements to a deputy violated defendant's Sixth Amendment rights as defendant was not able to cross-examine the victim; as the victim's statements were the only real evidence supporting the terroristic threats and obstructing a person making an emergency call convictions, those convictions were reversed. Miller v. State, 273 Ga. App. 761, 615 S.E.2d 843 (2005).

Cutting or otherwise disabling a telephone line is a "physical" act under O.C.G.A. § 16-10-24.3. - Evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of obstructing an emergency call, a violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-10-24.3, because the victim's outside telephone line was intentionally cut, and defendant told the victim that the victim could not call9-1-1 because defendant had cut the line. Williams v. State, 268 Ga. App. 384, 601 S.E.2d 833 (2004).