Meeks v. State
Meeks v. State
Opinion of the Court
Michael Meeks appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion to quash an indictment charging him with various offenses under the Georgia Boat Safety Act. See OCGA §§ 52-7-1 to 52-7-26. Since the plain language of the Boat Safety Act reflects that the Act does not apply to privately owned ponds or lakes that are not open to the public, and since the parties stipulated that the incident here occurred on a privately owned lake that was not open to the public, we reverse.
The record reveals that Meeks was indicted on six counts of serious injury by vessel, two counts of boating while under the influence of alcohol, and one count of reckless boating under the Boat Safety Act.
Since the facts are not in dispute and the question on appeal is purely one of law with respect to the application of the Boat Safety Act, we owe no deference to the trial court’s ruling and apply the “plain legal error” standard of review. See Suarez v. Halbert, 246 Ga. App. 822, 824 (1) (543 SE2d 733) (2000).
To determine the proper application of the Boat Safety Act, we need not look any further than the language of the Act itself. OCGA
As made clear by the statutory language, the General Assembly intended for the Boat Safety Act to apply to the operation of vessels on Georgia waters that are not privately owned, or are privately owned and open for public use. Since it is undisputed here that the incident that formed the basis for the indictment occurred entirely on a lake that was privately owned and was not open to the public, the trial court erred in failing to dismiss those portions of the indictment that were based on alleged violations of the Georgia Boat Safety Act. Cf. Buckalew v. State, 249 Ga. App. 134, 136 (1) (c) (547 SE2d 355) (2001) (conviction for boating under the influence upheld where evidence supported court finding that body of water where incident occurred fell within the definition of “[w]aters of this state”).
Judgment reversed.
Meeks was also indicted on one count of reckless conduct, but on appeal he does not challenge the indictment on this count.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.