O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 16-11-33 (2019)

Unlawful assembly

✓ 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 person who knowingly participates in either of the following acts or occurrences is guilty of a misdemeanor:

(1) The assembly of two or more persons for the purpose of committing an unlawful act and the failure to withdraw from the assembly on being lawfully commanded to do so by a peace officer and before any member of the assembly has inflicted injury to the person or property of another; or

(2) The assembly of two or more persons, without authority of law, for the purpose of doing violence to the person or property of one supposed by the accused to have been guilty of a violation of the law, or for the purpose of exercising correctional or regulative powers over any person by violence; provided, however, that it shall be an affirmative defense to a prosecution under this paragraph that the accused withdrew from the assembly on being lawfully commanded to do so by a peace officer or before any member of the assembly had inflicted injury to the person or property of another. (Laws 1833, Cobb’s 1851 Digest, p. 810; Code 1863, § 4399; Code 1868, § 4440; Code 1873, § 4513; Code 1882, § 4513; Penal Code 1895, § 353; Penal Code 1910, § 359; Code 1933, § 26-5301; Code 1933, § 26-2604, enacted by Ga. L. 1968, p. 1249, § 1; Ga. L. 1989, p. 14, § 16.)

Annotations

Cross references. - Freedom of assembly, Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Para. IX.

Law reviews. - For comment on Wright v. State, 217 Ga. 453, 122 S.E.2d

737 (1961), see 25 Ga. B.J. 99 (1962). For comment on Wright v. Georgia, 373 U.S. 284, 83 S. Ct. 1240, 10 L. Ed. 2d 349 (1963), see 26 Ga. B.J. 99 (1963).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Unlawful assembly for the purpose of committing criminal trespass is included in the crime of criminal trespass. Kerr v. State, 193 Ga. App. 165, 387 S.E.2d 355 (1989). Possibility of disorder by others cannot justify exclusion of persons

otherwise entitled to be present under equal protection clause of United States Constitution. Wright v. Georgia, 373 U.S. 284, 83 S. Ct. 1240, 10 L. Ed. 2d 349 (1963). Cited in Hoover v. State, 198 Ga. App. 481, 402 S.E.2d 92 (1991).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 53A Am. Jur. 2d, Mobs and Riots, § 21 et seq. C.J.S. - 91 C.J.S, Unlawful Assembly, § 1 et seq. ALR. - Public speaking in street, 62 A.L.R. 404. Failure or refusal to obey police officer’s order to move on, on street, as disorderly conduct, 65 A.L.R.2d 1152. What constitutes offense of unlawful assembly, 71 A.L.R.2d 875. Nonlabor picketing or boycott, 93 A.L.R.2d 1284. Participation of student in demonstra-

tion 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. Validity and construction of statute or ordinance forbidding unauthorized persons to enter upon or remain in school building or premises, 50 A.L.R.3d 340. Validity, construction, and operation of statute or regulation forbidding, regulating, or limiting peaceful residential picketing, 113 A.L.R.5th 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1989–1991 · leading case: Kerr v. State, 387 S.E.2d 355 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989).
Kerr v. State, 387 S.E.2d 355 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 10× “” We find that appellants’ convictions on these charges must be reversed.”
Hoover v. State, 402 S.E.2d 92 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 6× “After their arrest at a protest against abortion, appellants were tried before a jury and found guilty of obstruction of a public passage in violation of OCGA § 16-11-43 and unlawful assembly in violation of OCGA § 16-11-33 (1). The trial court held that there was a merger of…”
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.