Dominy v. Mays

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Dominy v. Mays

257 S.E.2d 317, 150 Ga. App. 187, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 2114

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 5, 1979

Docket57334

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 257 S.E.2d 317 (Dominy v. Mays) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dominy v. Mays, 257 S.E.2d 317, 150 Ga. App. 187, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 2114 (Ga. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinions

McMurray, Presiding Judge.

This case involves the termination of the contract of a tenured public school teacher for the reasons authorized in Code Ann. § 32-2101c (a) (4, 8) (Ga. L. 1975, p. 360) of "immorality” and "other good and sufficient cause.” Her contract was rescinded after a hearing which was affirmed on appeal to the State Board of Education and the superior court. She appeals. Held:

The board of education rested its case solely on documentary evidence showing the teacher’s arrest, plea of guilty on the three counts of violating the Georgia Controlled Substances Act, and sentencing under the first offender provisions of Code Ann.§§ 27-2727 through 27-2732 (Ga. L. 1968, pp. 324, 325). This evidence was entered pursuant to a stipulation of the parties for the limited purpose of relieving the board of education of the burden of proving the facts underlying the criminal charge.

We note that prior to the hearing of the termination charges against this teacher the probation to which she had been sentenced due to the criminal charges against her had been terminated. On the other hand, to the extent that the teacher’s plea of guilty admits possession of cocaine, glutethimide and marijuana, it remains and is not eradicated by the first offender treatment.

The possession of these drugs being proven, it is for the board of education as fact finders to determine whether the authorized inference of "immorality” is to be drawn from the proven facts. Compare Johnson v. General Motors Corp., 144 Ga. App. 305 (241 SE2d 30); Favors v. State, 234 Ga. 80 (214 SE2d 645).

The proven fact of the teacher’s possession of three dangerous drugs is evidence from which "immorality” may be inferred, even in the absence of criminal purpose or intent. The board of education is not required to disregard the common non-prescribed utilization of these drugs or to hypothesize some improbable innocuous explanation for the teacher’s possession of them. The decision of the board of education and subsequent administrative bodies being supported by evidence, the [188]*188superior court did not err in affirming the decision of the board. Ransum v. Chattooga County Bd. of Ed., 144 Ga. App. 783 (242 SE2d 374); First Nat. Bank of Atlanta v. Langford, 126 Ga. App. 325, 327 (1) (190 SE2d 803); Balkcom v. Williams, 220 Ga. 359 (138 SE2d 873).

Argued March 7, 1979 Decided June 5, 1979. Amy Totenberg, for appellant. Smith, Cohen, Ringel, Kohler & Martin, Bruce H. Beerman, Warren C. Fortson, for appellees.

Judgment affirmed.

Birdsong, J., concurs. Deen, C. J., concurs specially. Shulman, J., not participating.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

McMurray, Presiding Judge.

This case involves the termination of the contract of a tenured public school teacher for the reasons authorized in Code Ann. § 32-2101c (a) (4, 8) (Ga. L. 1975, p. 360) of "immorality” and "other good and sufficient cause.” Her contract was rescinded after a hearing which was affirmed on appeal to the State Board of Education and the superior court. She appeals. Held:

The board of education rested its case solely on documentary evidence showing the teacher’s arrest, plea of guilty on the three counts of violating the Georgia Controlled Substances Act, and sentencing under the first offender provisions of Code Ann.§§ 27-2727 through 27-2732 (Ga. L. 1968, pp. 324, 325). This evidence was entered pursuant to a stipulation of the parties for the limited purpose of relieving the board of education of the burden of proving the facts underlying the criminal charge.

We note that prior to the hearing of the termination charges against this teacher the probation to which she had been sentenced due to the criminal charges against her had been terminated. On the other hand, to the extent that the teacher’s plea of guilty admits possession of cocaine, glutethimide and marijuana, it remains and is not eradicated by the first offender treatment.

The possession of these drugs being proven, it is for the board of education as fact finders to determine whether the authorized inference of "immorality” is to be drawn from the proven facts. Compare Johnson v. General Motors Corp., 144 Ga. App. 305 (241 SE2d 30); Favors v. State, 234 Ga. 80 (214 SE2d 645).

The proven fact of the teacher’s possession of three dangerous drugs is evidence from which "immorality” may be inferred, even in the absence of criminal purpose or intent. The board of education is not required to disregard the common non-prescribed utilization of these drugs or to hypothesize some improbable innocuous explanation for the teacher’s possession of them. The decision of the board of education and subsequent administrative bodies being supported by evidence, the [188]*188superior court did not err in affirming the decision of the board. Ransum v. Chattooga County Bd. of Ed., 144 Ga. App. 783 (242 SE2d 374); First Nat. Bank of Atlanta v. Langford, 126 Ga. App. 325, 327 (1) (190 SE2d 803); Balkcom v. Williams, 220 Ga. 359 (138 SE2d 873).

Argued March 7, 1979 Decided June 5, 1979. Amy Totenberg, for appellant. Smith, Cohen, Ringel, Kohler & Martin, Bruce H. Beerman, Warren C. Fortson, for appellees.

Judgment affirmed.

Birdsong, J., concurs. Deen, C. J., concurs specially. Shulman, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 S.E.2d 317, 150 Ga. App. 187, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 2114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dominy-v-mays-gactapp-1979.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack