The Georgia Court of Appeals had to decide whether a trial court properly granted immunity to a defendant when the alleged victim recanted his story and the state failed to produce further evidence at a preliminary hearing. The court ruled that the defendant was entitled to immunity because there was evidence that the trial court could determine that the defendant had acted in self-defense prior to the trial.
In the case of State v. Yapo, the defendant Yapo and his girlfriend got into an argument on the way to a supermarket. The friend kept her car’s door open while Yapo drove, forcing Yapo to stop the car. Then the friend got out of the car and found a large bolt, which she threw at the windshield, smashing it. She then climbed into the back seat on the driver’s side and kicked the driver’s seat. This forced Yapo into the steering wheel and broke the seat. Yapo then retrained his girlfriend by grabbing her and giving her a “bear hug.” Someone called the police and the girlfriend reportedly told the police at the scene that Yapo had choked her. As a result of this incident, Yapo was arrested for assault and simple assault for choking his girlfriend.
Yapo denied the battery allegations, claiming he acted in self-defense and was therefore immune. At a pre-trial evidence hearing, the friend testified on the above issues; However, she denied telling police that she had been suffocated. The state had no other witnesses or evidence to present to the judge. The judge found the girlfriend’s testimony to be credible and ruled that Yapo was immune to the battery charges. The state appealed.
The state argued that the trial court erred in granting immunity because the verdict would affect future domestic violence prosecutions. The state argued that victims of domestic violence often retract previous statements, even though the alleged crimes actually took place. However, the court concluded that Georgian law clearly grants immunity to an accused acting in self-defense. Self-defense immunity is decided by a trial judge before the hearing, and the defendant must use the greater evidence to show that he acted in self-defense. At Yapo’s pretrial hearing, the court found the girlfriend’s testimony to be credible and the state provided no further evidence. Therefore, the Court of Appeal concluded that this was sufficient evidence to properly grant immunity.
This opinion is important because the court recognized the defendant’s right to a pre-trial hearing on his self-defense claim. This type of immunity is provided by law, but it is an unusual provision in Georgian criminal law.
Pate & Brody is a renowned Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers work to ensure justice is done for people accused of serious crimes. We have successfully represented clients in courts across Georgia facing serious federal and state criminal charges. Our lawyers have been included in the list of “Super Lawyers” of Georgia by Georgia Trend Magazine and included in the “Legal Elite” of Georgia. Our firm is also listed on the Martindale-Hubbell Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers.
