O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 16-10-4 (2019)

- Meaning of the offense set forth in former Code 1933, § 26-2301 (see now O.C.G.A. § 16-10-2(a)(2)) was dependent upon language of paragraph (a)(1) of that section with respect to purpose for which person ‘‘solicits or receives’’ and was thus restricted to ‘‘influencing him in performance of any act related to functions of his office or employment’’ whereas former Code 1933, § 26-2304 (see now O.C.G.A

✓ 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

§ 16-10-4) included solicitation for sale of influence by perpetrating officer or employee, who might or might not be a member of the legislative body, on others,

members of the legislative body, to assure passage or defeat of legislation. Ansley v. State, 124 Ga. App. 670, 185 S.E.2d 562 (1971), cert. denied, 408 U.S. 929, 92 S. Ct. 2503, 33 L. Ed. 2d 341 (1972). Former Code 1933, § 26-2301 (see now O.C.G.A. § 16-10-2) was restricted to bribes to influence an official in performance of any act related to functions of the official’s office or the official’s employment, whereas former Code 1933, § 26-2304(b) (see now O.C.G.A. § 16-10-4(b)) included sale of official’s influence on others who are members of a legislative body. Ansley v. Stynchcombe, 480 F.2d 437 (5th Cir. 1973). Conviction under § 16-10-4 not necessarily inconsistent with acquittal under § 16-10-2. - From standpoint of conviction and acquittal, acquittal on count under former Code 1933, § 26-2301 (see now O.C.G.A. § 16-10-2) was not, as a matter of law, inconsistent and repugnant to simultaneous conviction on count under former Code 1933, § 26-2304 (see now O.C.G.A. § 16-10-4). Ansley v. State, 124 Ga. App. 670, 185 S.E.2d 562 (1971), cert. denied, 408 U.S. 929, 92 S. Ct. 2503, 33 L. Ed. 2d 341 (1972). Cited in Koehler v. Massell, 229 Ga. 359, 191 S.E.2d 830 (1972).

Annotations

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 12 Am. Jur. 2d, Bribery, §§ 7, 8. C.J.S. - 11 C.J.S., Bribery, § 9. ALR. - Agreement to use one’s influence to have punishment for crime mitigated as contrary to public policy, 24 A.L.R. 1453. Furnishing public official with meals, lodging, or travel, or receipt of such benefits, as bribery, 67 A.L.R.3d 1231. Construction and application of § 2C1.1

of United States Sentencing Guidelines (18 USCS APPX § 2C1.1) pertaining to offenses involving public officials offering, giving, soliciting, or receiving bribes, or extortion under color of official right, 144 A.L.R. Fed. 615. Who is a public official within meaning of federal statute punishing bribery of a public official (18 USCA § 201), 161 A.L.R. Fed. 491.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2005–2005 · leading case: Whitworth v. State, 622 S.E.2d 21 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005).
Whitworth v. State, 622 S.E.2d 21 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “*791 The jury found Whitworth guilty 3 of violating OCGA § 16-10-4 (a), which provides: Any officer or employee of the state or any agency thereof who asks for or receives anything of value to which he is not entitled in return for an agreement to procure or attempt to procure…”
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.