O.C.G.A. § 16-10-32 (2019)
Attempted murder or threatening of witnesses in official proceedings
(a) Any person who attempts to kill another person with intent to:
(1) Prevent the attendance or testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
(2) Prevent the production of a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or
(3) Prevent the communication by any person to a law enforcement officer, prosecuting attorney, or judge of this state of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a criminal offense or a violation of conditions of probation, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than ten nor more than 20 years.
(b) Any person who threatens or causes physical or economic harm to another person or a member of such person’s family or household, threatens to damage or damages the property of another person or a member of such person’s family or household, or attempts to cause physical or economic harm to another person or a member of such person’s family or household with the intent to hinder, delay, prevent, or dissuade any person from:
(1) Attending or testifying in an official proceeding;
(2) Reporting in good faith to a law enforcement officer, prosecuting attorney, or judge of a court of this state, or its political subdivisions or authorities, the commission or possible commission of an offense under the laws of this state or a violation of conditions of probation, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
(3) Arresting or seeking the arrest of another person in connection with a criminal offense; or
(4) Causing a criminal prosecution, or a parole or probation revocation proceeding, to be sought or instituted, or assisting in such prosecution or proceeding shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years nor more than ten years or by a fine of not less than $10,000.00 nor more than $25,000.00, or both.
(c)(1) For the purposes of this Code section, the term ‘‘official proceeding’’ means any hearing or trial conducted by a court of this state or its political subdivisions, a grand jury, or an agency of the executive, legislative, or judicial branches of government of this state or its political subdivisions or authorities.
(2) An official proceeding need not be pending or about to be instituted at the time of any offense defined in this Code section.
(3) The testimony, record, document, or other object which is prevented or impeded or attempted to be prevented or impeded in an official proceeding in violation of this Code section need not be admissible in evidence or free of a claim of privilege.
(4) In a prosecution for an offense under this Code section, no state of mind need be proved with respect to the circumstance:
(A) That the official proceeding before a judge, court, magistrate, grand jury, or government agency is before a judge or court of this state, a magistrate, a grand jury, or an agency of state or local government; or
(B) That the judge is a judge of this state or its political subdivisions or that the law enforcement officer is an officer or employee of the State of Georgia or a political subdivision or authority of the state or a person authorized to act for or on behalf of the State of Georgia or a political subdivision or authority of the state.
(5) A prosecution under this Code section may be brought in the county in which the official proceeding, whether or not pending or about to be instituted, was intended to be affected or in the county in which the conduct constituting the alleged offense occurred.
(d) Any crime committed in violation of subsection (a) or (b) of this Code section shall be considered a separate offense.
History
(Code 1981, § 16-10-32, enacted by Ga. L. 1998, p. 270, § 4.)
Annotations
Code Commission notes. - Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1998, a comma was deleted following ‘‘kill another person’’ in the introductory paragraph of subsection (a).
Law reviews. - For review of 1998 legislation relating to crimes and offenses, see 15 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 80 (1998).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Probate judge erred by requesting removal of probation officers who testified against the judge. - Probate
judge who, among other conduct, requested that two probation officers who had testified against the probate judge at
the Judicial Qualifications Commission be removed from the judge’s court violated O.C.G.A. § 16-10-32 and was removed from office and barred from seeking judicial office again. Inquiry Concerning Fowler, 287 Ga. 467, 696 S.E.2d 644 (2010). Threat of lawsuit insufficient. - Georgia Court of Appeals concludes that actually exercising one’s right to file a lawsuit, conspiring with others to file a lawsuit, in and of itself, does not constitute a threat as required to support the crimes under O.C.G.A. §§ 16-10-93(a), 16-10-93(b)(1)(A), 16-10-32(b)(1), or 16-10-32(b)(4). Brown v. State, 322 Ga. App. 446, 745 S.E.2d 699 (2013). Evidence insufficient to support conviction. - During an intake interview at a mental health evaluation facility, a defendant’s threats regarding the defendant’s sentencing judge were made for the purpose of diagnosis and treatment of mental health issues, not with the purpose of terrorizing the judge or intimidating the judge from attending legal proceedings as required for finding terroristic threats in violation of O.C.G.A.
§§ 16-10-32(b) and 16-11-37(a). Koldewey v. State, 310 Ga. App. 788, 714 S.E.2d 371 (2011), cert. denied, 2012 Ga. LEXIS 239 (Ga. 2012). Evidence sufficient to support conviction. - There was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s conviction of threatening a witness in an official proceeding with regard to defendant unlawfully causing economic harm to the witness’s family member by damaging the witness’s spouse’s car by setting the car on fire, and defendant’s argument that the evidence did not show that the spouse suffered any economic harm since money was still owed on the car, the car had been broken down for about a year, and the spouse received an insurance check, did not contradict the jury’s finding of economic harm. Further, the spouse’s testimony authorized the jury to find that, as a result of the fire, the spouse suffered an uninsured loss of valuable personal property that was in the car, which was sufficient to show that the fire to the car had caused economic harm. Shelnutt v. State, 289 Ga. App. 528, 657 S.E.2d 611 (2008), cert. denied, No. S08C0977, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 518 (Ga. 2008).