O.C.G.A. § 16-11-30 (2019)

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS One person alone cannot commit crime of riot. Robinson v. State, 84 Ga. 674, 11 S.E. 544 (1890); Martin v. State, 115 Ga. 255, 41 S.E. 576 (1902); Lewis v. State, 5 Ga. App. 496, 63 S.E. 570 (1909). One or more persons involved in crime. - Because there was clear evidence that in creating the offense of ‘‘riot in a penal institution,’’ the Georgia General Assembly intended to criminalize certain conduct regardless of whether the conduct was committed by two or more persons acting in concert, and O.C.G.A. § 16-10-56 defined the offense without including any element of concerted action or reference to the general offense of riot, the defendant’s conviction of the crime was upheld on appeal, despite a claim that the defendant acted alone. Glanton v. State, 283 Ga. App. 232, 641 S.E.2d 234 (2007). Riot requires common intent and concert of action in furtherance of such intent. Smith v. State, 72 Ga. App. 108, 33

S.E.2d 120 (1945); Loomis v. State, 78 Ga. App. 153, 51 S.E.2d 13 (1948). Crime of riot requires joint action by two or more persons springing from a common intent. Dixon v. State, 105 Ga. 787, 31 S.E. 750 (1898); Tripp v. State, 109 Ga. 489, 34 S.E. 1021 (1900); Convey v. State, 113 Ga. 1060, 39 S.E. 425 (1901); Croy v. State, 4 Ga. App. 457, 61 S.E. 847 (1908); Nowell v. State, 32 Ga. App. 505, 123 S.E. 908 (1924). Riot requires violence in doing of unlawful act or violence and tumultuousness in doing of lawful act. Taylor v. State, 8 Ga. App. 241, 68 S.E. 945 (1910). Construction with O.C.G.A. § 16-10-56. - Defendant, who was charged with riot in a penal institution in violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-10-56, was not similarly situated for equal protection purposes to persons charged with riot under O.C.G.A. § 16-11-30 because only those charged with the same crime as defendant could be similarly situated.

Drew v. State, 285 Ga. 848, 684 S.E.2d 608 (2009). Merely making noise or behaving tumultuously does not constitute riot, in absence of violence. Smith v. State, 72 Ga. App. 108, 33 S.E.2d 120 (1945). Liability for acts of other rioters. - Rioters are fellow principals, each of whom is responsible for acts of the other, on theory that riot is not the act of any one of the rioters. Loomis v. Edwards, 80 Ga. App. 396, 56 S.E.2d 183 (1949), cert. denied, 339 U.S. 970, 70 S. Ct. 989, 94 L. Ed. 1377 (1950). All persons sharing in riot are guilty whether or not their conduct was violent and tumultuous. Green v. State, 109 Ga. 536, 35 S.E. 97 (1900). All persons connected with and sharing in common purpose of the assembly are guilty of riot, whether their conduct was violent and tumultuous or not. O’Quinn v. State, 39 Ga. App. 829, 148 S.E. 618 (1929). Riot is a misdemeanor. Loomis v. State, 78 Ga. App. 336, 51 S.E.2d 33 (1948). Conviction precluded unless evidence establishes commission of criminal acts specified in accusation. - In prosecution for riot, where court instructs jury that defendant would be guilty if, on occasion in question, defendant and other persons had jointly com-

mitted any unlawful act of violence or any act in a violent and tumultuous manner, but nowhere in charge tells jury clearly and distinctly that defendant cannot be convicted unless evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant committed one or more of the particular criminal acts specified in the accusation, failure so to instruct jury is error. Moore v. State, 55 Ga. App. 157, 189 S.E. 551 (1937). Indictment naming two rioters suffices. - When there are two rioters named, such would be a perfect indictment whether there was a third party or many others than the two named. Loomis v. Edwards, 80 Ga. App. 396, 56 S.E.2d 183 (1949), cert. denied, 339 U.S. 970, 70 S. Ct. 989, 94 L. Ed. 1377 (1950). Participants whose names are unknown may be included in indictment, but it must be alleged that their names are unknown. Martin v. State, 115 Ga. 255, 41 S.E. 576 (1902); Lewis v. State, 5 Ga. App. 496, 63 S.E. 570 (1909). Conviction of one of two rioters will stand, though other is acquitted, if evidence shows that any other person capable of committing the crime participated with person convicted in criminal act charged in indictment. Martin v. State, 115 Ga. 255, 41 S.E. 576 (1902). Cited in Sutton v. State, 158 Ga. App. 856, 282 S.E.2d 410 (1981); Powell v. State, 218 Ga. App. 556, 462 S.E.2d 447 (1995).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 53A Am. Jur. 2d, Mobs and Riots, § 1 et seq. C.J.S. - 77 C.J.S., Riot; Insurrection, § 1 et seq. ALR. - Unlawful parade as riot, 9 A.L.R. 552. What constitutes riot within criminal law, 49 A.L.R. 1135. What constitutes a ‘‘riot,’’ ‘‘civil commotion,’’ etc., within provisions of insurance policy, 121 A.L.R. 250. Participation of student in demonstration on or near campus as warranting imposition of criminal liability for breach

of peace, disorderly conduct, trespass, unlawful assembly, or similar offense, 32 A.L.R.3d 551. Sufficiency of evidence to establish criminal participation by individual involved in gang fight or assault, 24 A.L.R.4th 243. What constitutes sufficiently violent, tumultuous, forceful, aggressive, or terrorizing conduct to establish crime of riot in state courts, 38 A.L.R.4th 648. Prosecutions of inmates of state or local penal institutions for crime of riot, 39 A.L.R.4th 1170.