O.C.G.A.
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.
The general purposes of this title are: (1) To forbid and prevent conduct which unjustifiably and inexcusably causes or threatens substantial harm to individual or public interests; (2) To give fair warning of the nature of the conduct forbidden and the sentence authorized upon conviction; (3) To define that which constitutes each crime; and (4) To prescribe penalties which are proportionate to the seriousness of crimes and which permit recognition of differences in rehabilitation possibilities among individual criminals.
History
Code 1933, § 26-102, enacted by Ga. L. 1968, p. 1249, § 1.
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS ‘‘person’’ within the meaning of the relevant statute; thus, she did not receive the fair warning mandated by O.C.G.A. § 16-1-2. State v. Luster, 204 Ga. App. 156, 419 S.E.2d 32, cert. denied, 204 Ga. App. 922, 419 S.E.2d 32 (1992).
Pregnant woman not guilty of transporting drugs to fetus. - Pregnant woman could not have reasonably known that she could have been prosecuted for delivering or distributing cocaine to her fetus since the fetus was not a
RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 16A Am. Jur. 2d, Constitutional Law, § 427. 16B Am. Jur. 2d, Constitutional Law, § 972. 21 Am. Jur. 2d, Criminal Law, § 15 et seq.
C.J.S. - 22 C.J.S., Criminal Law: Substantive Principles, §§ 8, 23.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases, 1985–2010 · leading case:
Merritt v. State, 690 S.E.2d 835 (Ga. 2010).
Merritt v. State, 690 S.E.2d 835 (Ga. 2010).
· cites it 4× “See OCGA § 16-1-2 (purpose of Criminal Code is to give fair warning of nature of conduct forbidden and sentence authorized upon conviction).”
State v. Luster, 419 S.E.2d 32 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 4× “We look, therefore, to the language of the statute under which Luster was charged to determine whether she reasonably should have known that she could be prosecuted for delivering or distributing cocaine to her fetus if she ingested the controlled substance while pregnant.”
Reynolds v. State, 434 S.E.2d 166 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 4× “As a fair risk cannot be excluded (due to the unexplained ambiguity appearing in the face of the statute at the time of the offense) that appellant could have labored under a mistaken belief that merely because a second signal was not given he was free wilfully to elude police…”
State v. Brown, 551 S.E.2d 773 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “While defining visual media as “other visual media” may not add much, as the trial court noted, its inclusion indicates that the legislature did not intend for the list of enumerated items — films, photographs, negatives, slides, and magazines — to be exclusive.”
Warren v. State, 336 S.E.2d 221 (Ga. 1985).
· cites it 2× “OCGA § 16-1-2. 14 The appellant was indicted on August 7,1984, and Hardwick was decided on May 21, 1985.”
Hillman v. State, 503 S.E.2d 610 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “See OCGA § 16-1-2 (2); see also Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.”
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.