## Facts

- Graddy hired Byrd to build a laundry room in Graddy’s basement and paid Byrd $800 when the contract was signed.
- Byrd did not begin the work.
- Graddy terminated the contract, and Byrd agreed to refund the $800 minus $25 for materials, but he did not repay Graddy.
- Byrd was told the State would consider dismissing the criminal charge if Byrd and Graddy reached a civil settlement through a mediation process initiated by the state court’s criminal division.
- Byrd agreed to participate in the mediation.
- During mediation, Byrd and Graddy reached a civil settlement requiring Byrd to repay $800 (plus interest) in installments, and Byrd signed a written agreement reflecting that settlement.
- Byrd failed to make the required payments under the settlement.
- Byrd was indicted and tried for theft by taking under OCGA § 16-8-2.
- At trial, over objection, the State introduced evidence about the mediation, including Byrd’s statements made during the mediation and the written repayment agreement.
- Byrd was convicted and appealed, arguing the trial court wrongly admitted the mediation evidence and also erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict of acquittal.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence, apart from the mediation materials, was sufficient to support a conviction for theft by taking under OCGA § 16-8-2 (and thus whether denial of a directed verdict was error).
2. Whether the trial court committed reversible error by admitting evidence of a court-initiated mediation proceeding—including Byrd’s statements and the signed repayment agreement—when the mediation occurred in connection with the State’s indication it might dismiss the criminal charge if a settlement was reached.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals held that, aside from the mediation evidence, the proof could satisfy the Jackson v. Virginia standard for theft by taking because OCGA § 16-8-2 is written broadly enough to cover conduct that also looks like theft by conversion or theft by deception.
- The court held the trial court erred by admitting evidence concerning the mediation proceeding, including Byrd’s statements and the written settlement agreement to repay Graddy.
- Because that evidence was used as substantive proof against Byrd and was obtained in a court-initiated process tied to possible dismissal of criminal charges, the error was harmful.
- The conviction was reversed and the case remanded.

## Legal Principles

- OCGA § 16-8-2 (theft by taking) applies “regardless of the manner” in which property is taken or appropriated, so the State may prosecute under § 16-8-2 even when the facts resemble theft by conversion (OCGA § 16-8-4) or theft by deception.
- When reviewing sufficiency of the evidence, Georgia appellate courts apply Jackson v. Virginia: whether any rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on the admissible evidence.
- Statements and agreements arising from a mediation process initiated within the criminal court setting, undertaken with the stated possibility of dismissal of charges upon settlement, may not be admitted by the prosecution as substantive evidence of guilt at a later criminal trial where admission would violate basic fairness and constitutional protections, including the right against self-incrimination and due process.
- An evidentiary error that places before the jury a defendant’s mediation statements and a signed repayment agreement—materials likely to be treated as an admission of wrongdoing—is prejudicial when it materially supports the State’s theory of criminal intent.

## Conclusion

Byrd’s theft-by-taking conviction could not stand because the State was permitted to introduce mediation statements and a signed repayment agreement reached in a court-initiated mediation connected to the possibility of dismissing the criminal case; although the theft-by-taking statute is broad enough to cover conversion-type misuse of funds, the improper admission of the mediation materials required reversal and remand.


Byrd v. State, 367 S.E.2d 300 (1988)