Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
In the Interest of B. R.
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided December 14, 2007No. A07A1577Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMikell, Judge
Although I concur with Division 1 of the majority opinion, I respectfully dissent to Division 2 and to the grant of the motion for reconsideration because I believe that the state proved venue beyond a reasonable doubt.
Our Supreme Court has held that “the State may establish venue by whatever means of proof are available . . . , including direct and circumstantial evidence.”5 In the case at bar, all four of the law enforcement officers who testified at the hearing stated that they were employed by the Liberty County Sheriffs Office and were dispatched to the scene to investigate the burglary.…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Jones v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 2000
- In Re the Louisville UnderwritersSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Chapman v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 2002
- Embs v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of LexingtonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1975
- Richmond County Hospital Authority v. Richmond CountySupreme Court of Georgia · 1985
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.