Reclassification of Charges and Non-Custodial Sentences in a Case Involving an Assault on a Police Officer

The case

According to the charging decision, D.G., G.J., N.J., and L.N. were accused of using violence against a police officer during a physical confrontation, in connection with the performance of the officer’s official duties.

The charge against L.N. consisted of two episodes.

What the defense did

The defense’s principal position was based on distinguishing the fact of physical violence from the more serious legal qualification assigned to it by the prosecution.

Attorneys Avtandil Giorgadze and Beka Nemsitsveridze argued that, in order to establish an assault on a police officer, it was not sufficient to prove only the fact of violence and the victim’s status as a police officer. It was necessary to establish that the violence had been committed specifically in connection with the performance of the victim’s official duties.

During the consideration of the case, it was important to assess the reason for the conflict and the sequence of events.

The circumstances examined showed that the confrontation had initially begun between private citizens and that other persons subsequently became involved. According to the defense, the cause and motive of the violence had to be assessed in the context of that specific conflict.

The defense emphasized that the defendants’ knowledge of the victim’s status as a police officer, by itself, could not establish a connection between the violence and the performance of the victim’s official duties. The existence of sufficient evidence proving that connection was decisive for the original legal assessment of the charges.

During the trial on the merits, the court examined witness testimony, medical expert reports, and other evidence.

The medical expert report confirmed the existence and nature of the physical injuries. However, the mere existence of injuries could not, by itself, establish that the violence had been connected to the performance of the victim’s official duties.

Accordingly, the defense focused not on the formal existence of violence, but on assessing its motive and its connection with the specific conflict.

Outcome

After assessing the evidence examined in the case and the legal position developed by the defense, the court did not accept the original legal qualification under which the defendants’ actions constituted an assault on a police officer in connection with the performance of the officer’s official duties.

The charge brought against D.G., G.J., and N.J. under paragraph 1 of Article 353¹ of the Criminal Code of Georgia was reclassified under subparagraph (b) of paragraph 1¹ of Article 126—as violence committed by a group.

In L.N.’s case, the two episodes were classified under subparagraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph 1¹ of Article 126—as violence committed by a group and against two persons.

In relation to certain episodes, the criminal prosecution was also discontinued on the basis of an amnesty.