O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 16-12-37 (2019)

Dogfighting

✓ 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) As used in this Code section, the term “dog” means any domestic canine. (b) Any person who: (1) Owns, possesses, trains, transports, or sells any dog with the intent that such dog shall be engaged in fighting with another dog; (2) For amusement or gain, causes any dog to fight with another dog or for amusement or gain, causes any dogs to injure each other; (3) Wagers money or anything of value on the result of such dogfighting; (4) Knowingly permits any act in violation of paragraph (1) or (2) of this subsection on any premises under the ownership or control of such person or knowingly aids or abets any such act; or (5) Knowingly promotes or advertises an exhibition of fighting with another dog shall be guilty of a felony and, upon the first conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than one nor more than five years, a fine of not less than $5,000.00, or both such fine and imprisonment. On a second or subsequent conviction, such person shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than one nor more than ten years, a fine of not less than $15,000.00, or both such fine and imprisonment. Each act or omission in violation of this subsection shall constitute a separate offense.

OFFENSES/HEALTH & MORALS

(c) Any person who is knowingly present only as a spectator at any place for the fighting of dogs shall, upon a first conviction thereof, be guilty of a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature. On a second conviction, such person shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than one nor more than five years, a fine of not less than $5,000.00, or both such fine and imprisonment. On a third or subsequent conviction, such person shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than one nor more than ten years, a fine of not less than $15,000.00, or both such fine and imprisonment. Each act in violation of this subsection shall constitute a separate offense. (d) Any dog subject to fighting may be impounded pursuant to the provisions of Code Sections 4-11-9.2 through 4-11-9.6. (e) This Code section shall not prohibit, impede, or otherwise interfere with animal husbandry, training techniques, competition, events, shows, or practices not otherwise specifically prohibited by law and shall not apply to the following activities: (1) Owning, using, breeding, training, or equipping any animal to pursue, take, hunt, or recover wildlife or any animal lawfully hunted under Title 27 or participating in hunting or fishing in accordance with the provisions of Title 27 and rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto as such rules and regulations existed on the date specified in Code Section 27-1-39; (2) Owning, using, breeding, training, or equipping dogs to work livestock for agricultural purposes in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Commissioner of Agriculture as such rules and regulations existed on January 1, 2008; (3) Owning, using, breeding, training, or equipping dogs for law enforcement purposes; or (4) Owning, using, breeding, training, or equipping any animal to control damage from nuisance or pest species in and around structures or agricultural operations.

History

Code 1933, § 26-2714, enacted by Ga. L. 1982, p. 2214, § 1; Code 1981, § 16-12-36, enacted by Ga. L. 1982, p. 2214, § 2; Code 1981, § 16-12-37, as redesignated by Ga. L. 1983, p. 3, § 13; Ga. L. 2008, p. 114, § 1-1/HB 301.

Annotations

Law reviews. For survey article on criminal law and

procedure, see 34 Mercer L. Rev. 89 (1982). For comment, “The Abuse of Animals as a Method of Domestic Violence: The Need for Criminalization,” see 63 Emory L.J. 1163 (2014).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Section constitutional. - O.C.G.A. § 16-12-37, which outlaws knowing and active participation in a dogfight, infringes on no constitutionally protected conduct and is constitutionally valid. Moody v. State, 253 Ga. 456, 320 S.E.2d 545, 1984 Ga. LEXIS 954 (1984). O.C.G.A. § 16-12-37, which does not make unlawful the mere allowing of a dogfight to occur, but which prohibits one from causing or allowing a dog to fight another dog for a particular purpose (i.e., sport or gambling), the term “allow” encompassing knowledge and consent, is sufficiently definite to put those of common intelligence on notice that knowing participation in a dogfighting event is prohibited. Hargrove v. State, 253 Ga. 450, 321 S.E.2d 104, 1984 Ga. LEXIS 955 (1984). While O.C.G.A. § 16-12-4 makes it a misdemeanor for anyone to subject any animal to cruel treatment, O.C.G.A. § 16-12-37 does not violate equal protection, because the legislature acted within its discretion in mandating that those who participate in a dogfight organization for sport or gaming purposes should be dealt with more harshly. Hargrove v. State, 253 Ga. 450, 321 S.E.2d 104, 1984 Ga. LEXIS 955 (1984). Van used to transport fighting dogs may be condemned under § 16-12-32. - Van used to transport two fighting dogs to the scene of dogfights and which was thus used to facilitate a dogfight in violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-12-37, may be

condemned as provided in O.C.G.A. § 16-12-32. Macon Auto Cleaners v. State, 175 Ga. App. 13, 332 S.E.2d 324, 1985 Ga. App. LEXIS 2001 (1985). Evidence sufficient for conviction. - Evidence that defendant was four hundred miles from defendant’s home shortly after dawn in a remote area of the state where dogfighting and gambling were taking place, that defendant was apprehended directly next to a pit where dogfighting was underway, and that defendant was arrested with $899 on defendant’s person was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to conclude that defendant was guilty of allowing dogfighting to take place and gambling. Barton v. State, 253 Ga. 478, 322 S.E.2d 54, 1984 Ga. LEXIS 989 (1984). Evidence insufficient for conviction. - When the state offered no evidence linking defendants to the area where dogfighting and gambling were taking place, but only showed that the defendants were “brought back” from an undetermined place by an unidentified officer and searched next to the dog pit, evidence was insufficient to support convictions for dogfighting and gambling. Barton v. State, 253 Ga. 478, 322 S.E.2d 54, 1984 Ga. LEXIS 989 (1984). Penalty provision constitutional. - A $5,000.00 fine and an optional one year in prison does not amount to cruel and unusual punishment for those convicted of dogfighting in this state. Hargrove v. State, 253 Ga. 450, 321 S.E.2d 104, 1984 Ga. LEXIS 955 (1984).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Fingerprinting required for violators. - Offenses arising under O.C.G.A. § 16-12-37(c) are designated as

offenses for which those charged are to be fingerprinted. 2009 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 2009-1.

RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. Validity, construction, and application of

criminal statutes and ordinances to prosecution for dogfighting, 68 A.L.R.6th 115.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case: Hargrove v. State, 321 S.E.2d 104 (Ga. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hargrove v. State, 321 S.E.2d 104 (Ga. 1984). · cites it 20× “On appeal they raise the constitutionality of OCGA § 16-12-37, the dogfighting law and the sufficiency of the evidence relating to all other counts.”
Stephens v. State, 545 S.E.2d 325 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 16-12-37 (a). 8 See Jackson v. Virginia, supra.”
State v. Thaxton, 715 S.E.2d 480 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 4× “The record shows that Randall Thaxton was arrested on or about October 30, 2008, for seven counts of dogfighting (OCGA § 16-12-37), cruelty to animals (OCGA § 16-12-4), and possession of more than one ounce of marijuana (OCGA § 16-13-30).”
Phillip v. State, 721 S.E.2d 214 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “The record shows that, in September 2009, Phillip entered a nonnegotiated guilty plea to fourteen counts of dogfighting, OCGA § 16-12-37 (b), and two counts of aggravated cruelty to animals, OCGA § 16-12-4 (c).”
Barton v. State, 322 S.E.2d 54 (Ga. 1984). · cites it 6× “William Townsend, Marvin Chafin, James Barton and William Greene were convicted of the offense of dogfighting in that they unlawfully allowed a dog to fight another dog in violation of OCGA § 16-12-37, 1 and of the offense of gambling in violation of OCGA § 16-12-21 (a) (l).”
Favors v. State, 756 S.E.2d 612 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “Favors had also been charged with two counts of dogfighting (OCGA § 16-12-37), and additional counts of aggravated cruelty to animals and cruelty to animals, hut the jury deadlocked on those counts.”
Moody v. State, 320 S.E.2d 545 (Ga. 1984). · cites it 2× “This is an appeal by 59 defendants who were indicted in Bacon County for violating the dogfighting statute (OCGA § 16-12-37). The trial court overruled a motion to quash and strike the indictment on the grounds that the law is unconstitutional.”
Johnie Flakes v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 4× “” OCGA § 16-12-37 (1984). In Price v. State, 253 Ga.”
Candice Sorrells v. Josh Smith (11th Cir. 2024). · cites it 2× “10 In short, O.C.G.A. § 16-12-37(b) provides that an individual commits the felony crime of dogfighting when she engages in any number of activities related to dogfighting, including possessing, training, or selling dogs to fight, or causing dogs to fight one another.”
Dunn Terrious Bradford v. the State of Georgia (Ga. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “While responding to the loose dog complaint with the code enforcement officer, the investigator saw no other evidence of dogs associated with the approximately seven other residences on the street, and before they entered Bradford’s property, they were able to hear a large…”
Macon Auto Cleaners v. State, 332 S.E.2d 324 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 4× “Appellant argues that the State has no authority under OCGA § 16-12-37 to seize and condemn the van.”
— 16-12-37(b) — 1 case
Candice Sorrells v. Josh Smith (11th Cir. 2024). “10 In short, O.C.G.A. § 16-12-37(b) provides that an individual commits the felony crime of dogfighting when she engages in any number of activities related to dogfighting, including possessing, training, or selling dogs to fight, or causing dogs to fight one another.”
— 16-12-37(b)(1) — 1 case
Candice Sorrells v. Josh Smith (11th Cir. 2024). “10 In short, O.C.G.A. § 16-12-37(b) provides that an individual commits the felony crime of dogfighting when she engages in any number of activities related to dogfighting, including possessing, training, or selling dogs to fight, or causing dogs to fight one another.”
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.