Garland v. State

361 Ga.App. 724

865 S.E.2d 533

GARLAND

v.The STATE.

A21A1059

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

November 1, 2021

Scott Robert Grubman, Atlanta, Brittany M. Cambre, for Appellant.

Christopher Michael Carr, Atlanta, John Evans Fowler, Laura D'Ann Dyes Pfister, Atlanta, Blair Lawhon McGowan, for Appellee.

Rickman, Chief Judge.

Following a jury trial, Jenna Marie Garland was convicted on two misdemeanor counts of violating the Georgia Open Records Act.¹ She filed a motion for new trial, which the trial court denied. Garland argues that the evidence was insufficient to support her convictions. She further asserts that the trial court erred by denying her motion for new trial because the court erroneously admitted expert testimony; failed to grant a mistrial based upon comments made by the prosecutor during closing argument; and denied her request to give two jury instructions. Finally, Garland argues that the trial court erred by refusing to sentence her under Georgia's First Offender Act.² For the reasons set forth below, we find no error and affirm.

On appeal from a criminal conviction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to support the jury's verdict, and the defendant no longer enjoys a presumption of innocence. We do not weigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses, but determine only whether the evidence authorized the jury to find the defendant guilty of the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt in accordance with the standard set forth in Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).

(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Laster v. State , 340 Ga. App. 96, 97, 796 S.E.2d 484 (2017).

So construed, the evidence adduced at trial showed that in 2017, Garland worked as press secretary for then-Mayor of Atlanta, Kasim Reed. In that role, Garland was involved in responding to requests made for public records pursuant to Georgia's Open Records Act (the "Act"),³ which requires in general that a government agency produce all existing and available public records responsive to a request "within a reasonable amount of time not to exceed three business days of receipt of [the] request." See OCGA § 50-18-71 (b) (1) (A).

In early 2017, the newsroom of WSB-TV, a local news station, received a tip that certain elected officials in Atlanta were getting "sweetheart deal[s]" on their water bills. On February 28, 2017, Terah Boyd, a special projects producer from the station, sent an open records request to the Director of Communications and Community Relations for the City of Atlanta's Department of Watershed Management (the "Director") seeking the water usage, billing, and payment records associated with four separate addresses within the City of Atlanta ("the City"). The Director forwarded the request to an employee within the Watershed Department who had access to the computer system and who successfully obtained the records that same day. The employee recognized that three of the requested billing records corresponded to properties owned by then-Mayor Reed and his brother;⁴ that all three of those properties were in arrears and had gone unpaid for a significant period of time;⁵ and that two of the properties had disconnect notices and the third was under investigation for water theft. The employee immediately notified the Director.

Because the requested records involved the mayor and his family, the Director understood that she was required to obtain approval from the mayor's office before the records could be released and, consequently, she notified Garland of the request. The Director sent the records to Garland for her review the following day, and was instructed by Garland to hold them until she authorized their release. Garland did ultimately authorize the release of the records, and they were produced to Boyd on March 3, 2017, within the statutory deadline. As produced, the documents were identifiable only by account number, but in response to a follow-up email from Boyd, the Director clarified which address was associated with each account number.

Upon her receipt and review of the records, Boyd discovered that she had misspelled one of the street names associated with the mayor's brother in her initial request for the documents. Consequently, on March 7, 2017, she submitted a second open records request to the Director for the billing records associated with the correctly-spelled address. In the interim, Boyd and Garland had a telephone conversation in which Boyd relayed to Garland that she was looking into the newsroom tip about elected officials receiving special treatment on their water bills to see if it was worth reporting on. Garland subsequently sent a series of text messages to the Director, instructing her to "be as unhelpful as possible," "drag [the request] out as long as possible," and "provide information in the most confusing format available." Later that same day, Boyd sent a request for the billing records associated with an address belonging to a member of Atlanta's City Council.

On Friday, March 10, 2017, three days after the request for the record associated with the corrected address, the Director, who had obtained the record but had not yet received permission from Garland to release it, informed Boyd that she would produce it on Monday, March 13. When Boyd had not received the record by Tuesday, March 14, she emailed the Director for a status update. The Director had been instructed by Garland to inform Boyd that the record would be produced the following Monday, March 20. The record was finally produced on that date and despite the initial misspelling of the address, it appeared to be the same record as that which had already been produced, although it contained an additional billing cycle.

The following day, on March 21, Boyd sent the Director an open records request for the billing records of 13 additional addresses associated with members of Atlanta's City Council, and reminded her that she was still awaiting the billing records for the council member's account that had been requested on March 7. The Director informed Garland of the request. The additional records were compiled and received by the Director three days later, on March 24, and showed that three of the council members’ accounts were delinquent and had been subject to disconnect notices. The Director sent the records to Garland for her review, and Garland instructed her to inform Boyd that they would be produced two weeks later, on Friday, April 7.

On April 7, however, Garland sent the Director a text message instructing her to continue to "hold all [the records] until [Boyd] asks for [an] update." When Boyd asked for the status of the documents later that evening, the Director informed Boyd that she had already left the office and that the records would be produced the following Monday, April 10.

On the morning of Monday, April 10, after being instructed to do so by Garland, the Director requested that her employee rerun the billing records for the addresses associated with the council members. The updated records were prepared and supplied to the Director by midday. The records reflected that two of the members’ accounts remained in arrears, but that one of the member's accounts had been made current. Garland was informed that the updated records had been compiled but continued to withhold authorization for their release.

Later on Monday, Boyd sent the Director an email inquiring as to the status of the requested records and received no response. On Wednesday, April 12, still having not obtained the records, an attorney representing WSB-TV sent a letter to the Director as well as certain members of the legal department demanding the production of the records. They were finally released on April 14.⁶

The Georgia Attorney General filed an accusation charging Garland with two counts of violating the Act, alleging that she "knowingly and willingly attempt[ed] to frustrate" access to records responsive to Boyd's March 7, 2017 and March 21, 2017 requests. Garland was tried by a jury in the State Court of Fulton County and was convicted on both counts. She filed a motion for new trial, which the trial court denied. This appeal follows.

As an initial matter, we note that the Act mandates that "[a]ll public records shall be open for personal inspection and copying, except those which by order of a court of this state or by law are specifically exempted from disclosure."⁷ OCGA § 50-18-71 (a). The statute further provides that upon request, a government agency "shall produce" for inspection all responsive records "within a reasonable amount of time not to exceed three business days of receipt of [the] request." OCGA § 50-18-71 (b) (1) (A). In the event that some, but not all, of the requested records are available within three business days, the agency "shall make available within that period those records that can be located and produced." Id. Finally, if responsive records exist but are unavailable within three business days of receipt of the request, "the agency shall, within such time period, provide the requester with a description of such records and a timeline for when the records will be available for inspection or copying and provide the responsive records or access thereto as soon as practicable." Id.

As relevant to this case, the Act is violated when a person "knowingly and willingly frustrat[es] or attempt[s] to frustrate the access to records by intentionally making records difficult to obtain or review." OCGA § 50-18-74 (a). A person who does so may face either civil or criminal penalties, or both. See id.; see also OCGA § 50-18-73 (a).

1. Garland argues that the evidence was insufficient to support her convictions. Specifically, she contends that the State failed to prove that venue was proper in Fulton County; that she knowingly violated the Act in connection with Boyd's March 7 request; and that she acted in bad faith in handling Boyd's March 21 request. We will address each in turn.

...