O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 16-11-31 (2019)

Inciting to riot

✓ 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

(a) A person who with intent to riot does an act or engages in conduct which urges, counsels, or advises others to riot, at a time and place and under circumstances which produce a clear and present danger of a riot, commits the offense of inciting to riot. (b) Any person who violates subsection (a) of this Code section is guilty of a misdemeanor.

History

(Code 1933, § 26-2602, enacted by Ga. L. 1968, p. 1249, § 1; Ga. L. 1969, p. 857, § 20.)

Annotations

Cross references. - Constitutional guarantee of free speech and press, Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Para. V. JUDICIAL DECISIONS Section not unconstitutionally vague or broad. - O.C.G.A. § 16-11-31 is neither unconstitutionally vague in that the statute provides overall fair warning to persons of ordinary intelligence as to what conduct is prohibited so that persons may act accordingly, nor is the statute overbroad in that the statute proscribes only certain intentional behavior which produces a clear and present danger of

achieving riotous results. Land v. State, 262 Ga. 898, 426 S.E.2d 370, cert. denied, 509 U.S. 909, 113 S. Ct. 3008, 125 L. Ed. 2d 699 (1993); Mastroianni v. Deering, 835 F. Supp. 1577 (S.D. Ga. 1993). Cited in McElroy v. Williams Bros. Motors, 104 Ga. App. 435, 121 S.E.2d 917 (1961); 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, § 20. C.J.S. - 77 C.J.S., Riot; Insurrection, §§ 4 et seq., 11, 37 et seq. ALR. - 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.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1989–2024 · leading case: Land v. State, 426 S.E.2d 370 (Ga. 1993).
Land v. State, 426 S.E.2d 370 (Ga. 1993). · cites it 8× “Appellant was convicted of inciting to riot (OCGA § 16-11-31 (a)), and now challenges that conviction and the constitutionality of the statute.”
Alexander Props. Grp., Inc. v. Doe, 626 S.E.2d 497 (Ga. 2006). · cites it 2× “low-level radiation”); OCGA§ 16-13-22 (“to produce psychic or physiological dependence liability”); OCGA § 16-11-31 (“conduct which urges . .”
Powell v. State, 462 S.E.2d 447 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 4× “A jury convicted Powell of inciting to riot (OCGA § 16-11-31 (a)). He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence.”
Knowles v. the State, 797 S.E.2d 197 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “23 See id, at 315; see also OCGA § 16-11-31 (a) (“Aperson who with intent to riot does an act or engages in conduct which urges, counsels, or advises others to riot, at a time and place and under circumstances which produce a clear and present danger of a riot, commits the…”
Spivey v. State, 386 S.E.2d 868 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “He thereafter pleaded guilty to two severed charges of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (OCGA § 16-11-31 (b)) on both dates. 1. Defendant contends the evidence was insufficient, citing Jackson v.”
State v. Theodore Roundtree (Ga. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “Similarly, in this case, language in OCGA § 16-11-31 permitting deviation from the mandatory minimum only under certain circumstances — none of which apply to Roundtree — does not deprive the trial court of its discretion under OCGA § 17-10-1 (a) (1) (A) to impose a probated…”
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.