O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 15-10-61 (2019)

No right to trial by jury; right of removal to state or superior court

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)

Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

There shall be no jury trials in the magistrate court. Any defendant who is charged with one or more ordinance violations may, at any time before trial, demand that the case be removed for a jury trial to the state court of the county or to the superior court of the county if there is no state court. Such a demand shall be written. Upon such a demand the court shall grant the demand. Failure to so demand removal of the case shall constitute a waiver of any right to trial by jury which the defendant may otherwise have.

History

Code 1981, § 15-10-61, enacted by Ga. L. 1983, p. 884, § 2-1; Ga. L. 1987, p. 448, § 2.

Annotations

Cross references. - Transfers and

changes of venue in magistrate court proceedings, Uniform Rules for the Magistrate Courts, Rule 36.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS O.C.G.A. § 15-10-61 was not a general law which provided for removal to state court for jury trial, and the local law governing the county recorder’s court did not violate the constitutional prohibition against local laws on the same subject as general laws. Smith v. Greene, 274 Ga. 815, 559 S.E.2d 726 (2002). Transfer to another court. - Because defendant’s case for violation of various municipal ordinances for operating a sexually oriented business without a li-

cense arose in municipal court, not magistrate court, the defendant was not entitled to have the charges against the defendant bound over to state court and the defendant’s constitutional issues were not preserved for appeal. Focus Entm’t Int’l, Inc. v. Bailey, 256 Ga. App. 283, 568 S.E.2d 183 (2002). Cited in Avant v. Douglas County, 253 Ga. 225, 319 S.E.2d 442 (1984); Haygood v. State, 221 Ga. App. 477, 471 S.E.2d 552 (1996).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1984–2002 · leading case: Smith v. Greene, 559 S.E.2d 726 (Ga. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Smith v. Greene, 559 S.E.2d 726 (Ga. 2002). · cites it 10× “” On November 30, 2000, Smith filed a demand for jury trial pursuant to OCGA § 15-10-61 1 in the Recorder’s Court of Gwinnett County.”

Focus Ent. Int'l, Inc. v. Bailey, 568 S.E.2d 183 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 6× “It contended that, under OCGA § 36-32-3, a municipal court judge has “the same powers and authorities as magistrates in the matter of and pertaining to criminal cases of whatever nature in the several courts of this state.”

Avant v. Douglas Cnty., 319 S.E.2d 442 (Ga. 1984). · cites it 4× “If two such actions are commenced simultaneously, the defendant may require the plaintiff to elect which he will prosecute.”

Haygood v. State, 471 S.E.2d 552 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 3× “Moreover, OCGA § 15-10-61 required the magistrate court to grant Haygood’s initial written demand for jury trial and remove the case to the state court for a jury trial.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.