P. J., COOMER and MARKLE, JJ.
jury trial, Hope Nicole Mays was convicted of three
misdemeanor offenses: disorderly conduct, obstruction of a
law enforcement officer, and simple battery on a police
officer. On appeal, she argues that the trial court erred in
denying her motion for a directed verdict on her disorderly
conduct charge and that the trial court also erred by
excluding evidence of a voicemail that she left on her
stepmother's phone. We agree with Mays that the trial
court should have granted her motion for directed verdict on
disorderly conduct, and reverse that conviction. We affirm
her remaining convictions.
in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence
showed that on May 16, 2017, Mays was admitted to the
emergency room after complaining of pain. She was given
medication and slept for approximately four hours. Around
2:00 a.m., Mays's attending nurse informed her that she
would be discharged. Upon learning she was going to be
released, Mays became irate and verbally abusive towards the
nurse. She then tore the blood pressure cuff off her arm. She
also ripped out her IV and threw it at the nurse, striking
him in the leg and splattering blood on the door.
were dispatched to the hospital and found Mays outside on a
curb. At that time, Mays was in an excited state. She was
talking rapidly and yelling racial slurs at the officers. At
some point, officers decided to arrest her. They directed her
multiple times to stand up and she refused. Officers then
grabbed her by the arms in order to stand her up and place
her in handcuffs. As they did so, Mays attempted to pull away
from the officers. After they finally placed her in
handcuffs, Mays kicked one of the officers. They eventually
subdued her and placed her in the patrol car.
was charged with disorderly conduct, obstruction of a law
enforcement officer, and simple battery on a law enforcement
officer. The jury convicted her on all charges and this
an initial matter, we note that Mays filed her brief late and
the State moved to dismiss the appeal. Rule 23(a) of this
Court provides that the failure to file briefs within the
time allowed "may result in the dismissal of
the appeal. . . ." (emphasis supplied). Although we do
not condone Mays's failure to timely file her appellate
brief, "this Court is not required to refuse to consider
an untimely brief nor hold the late-filing party in
contempt." Roberson v. State, 335 Ga.App. 606,
607 n.1 (782 S.E.2d 671) (2016). Despite Mays's late
filing, we deny the State's motion to dismiss and will
consider her appeal. See Carter v. State, 267
Ga.App. 520, 520 n.1 (600 S.E.2d 637) (2004) (The
defendant's "motion to dismiss the State's brief
as untimely and to hold the State in contempt is . . .
her first enumeration, Mays argues that the trial court erred
in denying her motion for directed verdict because the
State's evidence showed that the medical equipment at
risk of being damaged from her actions belonged to the
hospital, and not the nurse. We agree with Mays that the
State failed to prove each element of the offense.
The standard of review for the denial of a motion for a
directed verdict of acquittal is the same as for determining
the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction: the
evidence must be sufficient for a rational trier of fact to
find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty
of the charged offense.
Hughes v. State, 297 Ga.App. 217, 217 (676 S.E.2d
852) (2009) (footnote omitted).
was charged with violating OCGA § 16-11-39 (a) (2),
which provides that "[a] person commits the offense of
disorderly conduct when such person . . . [a]cts in a violent
or tumultuous manner towards another person whereby the
property of such person is placed in danger of being damaged
count 1 of the accusation, the State alleged that Mays:
did act in a violent and tumultuous manner towards another
person, to wit: [attending nurse], whereby the property of
another person, to wit: medical equipment, was placed in
danger of being damaged, contrary to the laws of said State,
the good order, peace and dignity thereof.
argues that under the statute and the indictment, the State
was required to show that the medical equipment at risk of
being damaged was owned by the nurse, and that the ...