O.C.G.A.
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.
Any person who shall abandon, in a public place, any dangerous drug, poison, or controlled substance as defined by Article 2 or Article 3 of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
History
Code 1933, § 79A-9918, enacted by Ga. L. 1977, p. 625, § 9.
Annotations
Cross references. Use of dogs to detect controlled substances, § 35-2-101.
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Abandonment is not a lesser included offense of possession and, even if there was evidence that defendant prosecuted for possession of cocaine might have committed the separate act of abandonment, defendant was not entitled to a charge on that crime. Billingsley v. State,
220 Ga. App. 69, 467 S.E.2d 377, 1996 Ga. App. LEXIS 94 (1996). Evidence sufficient for conviction. - Evidence supported defendant’s conviction for abandonment of a controlled substance in a public place, in violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-13-3, because
defendant was approached by undercover officers, and when defendant realized that they were officers, defendant threw the crack cocaine that defendant was holding at a trash barrel on the abandoned residential lot where defendant was standing; the area was within the definition of “public place” under O.C.G.A. § 16-1-3(15) as the area was viewed by persons other than the members of defendant’s family or household. Woods v. State, 275 Ga. App. 471, 620 S.E.2d 660, 2005 Ga. App. LEXIS 997 (2005). Evidence was sufficient to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of manufacturing methamphetamine, O.C.G.A. § 16-13-30(b), conspiring to possess methamphetamine, O.C.G.A. § 16-13-3, and possessing methamphetamine, § 16-13-30(a) because the state was not required to show that the defendant was in sole or
actual possession of the methamphetamine but could establish the element of possession by showing that the defendant was in joint constructive possession of the contraband; the evidence allowed for a finding that the defendant lived at the residence where the methamphetamine was found, that methamphetamine was found in the master bedroom atop the same dresser as a driver’s license bearing the defendant’s name and the residential address, that stored in a lockbox underneath the bed in that room were recipes for producing methamphetamine or a similar substance, along with digital scales associated with the drug trade, and that the defendant’s residential premises was being used as a clandestine methamphetamine lab. Edwards v. State, 306 Ga. App. 713, 703 S.E.2d 130, 2010 Ga. App. LEXIS 1034 (2010).
RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. Federal prosecutions based on manufacture, importation, transportation, possession, sale, or use of LSD, 22 A.L.R.3d 1325. Propriety of lesser-included-offense charge in state prosecution of narcotics
defendant - Marijuana cases, 1 A.L.R.6th 549. Propriety of lesser-included-offense charge in state prosecution of narcotics defendant - Cocaine cases, 2 A.L.R.6th 551.
Notes of Decisions
Mbigi v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., 785 S.E.2d 8 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “A person commits residential mortgage fraud when, as pertinent here, such person, “with the intent to defraud,” “[f]iles or causes to be filed with the official 6 To the extent that Wells Fargo suggests that OCGA § 16-13-3 (8) (A) (2014) requires that the last predicate act be…”
Recoba v. State, 345 S.E.2d 81 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 6× “Several of appellant’s enumerations of error are predicated upon the provisions of OCGA § 16-13-3: “Any person who shall abandon, in a public place, any dangerous drug, poison, or controlled substance as defined by Article 2 or Article 3 of [Chapter 13 of the Criminal Code]…”
State v. Hammond, 723 S.E.2d 89 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “6 See OCGA § 16-13-3. 7 We note that “[t]he ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine provides that any evidence acquired by the police through exploitation of information obtained by means of unlawful conduct is inadmissible in a criminal prosecution.”
Jones v. State, 580 S.E.2d 278 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 4× “[12] See Reddick, supra; Crawford, supra; Williams, supra; OCGA § 16-13-3 ("Any person who shall abandon, in a public place, any dangerous drug, poison, or controlled substance .”
Fortune v. State, 696 S.E.2d 120 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 2× “See OCGA §§ 16-13-3; 16-13-30 (b), (j); 16-13-31 (a); Grier, 273 Ga.”
Luckie v. Berry, 827 S.E.2d 644 (Ga. 2019).
· cites it 2× “See OCGA §§ 16-13-3, 16-13-30 (b). At a trial on April 5 and 6, 2005, a Fulton County jury found him guilty of both charges.”
Billingsley v. State, 467 S.E.2d 377 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 4× “” OCGA § 16-13-3. We have previously ruled that the offense of abandonment is not a lesser included offense of possession but rather a separate offense.”
Reed v. State, 474 S.E.2d 264 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “Reed cites the court’s rejection of his requests to charge the jury on abandonment of a controlled substance (OCGA § 16-13-3) and possession of cocaine (OCGA § 16-13-30) as lesser included offenses of trafficking in cocaine.”
Dryden v. State, 665 S.E.2d 341 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “2 Dryden pled guilty to possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute (OCGA § 16-13-30 (b)), abandonment of a controlled substance (OCGA § 16-13-3), and running a stop sign (OCGA § 40-6-72 (b)).”
Woods v. State, 620 S.E.2d 660 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “OCGA § 16-13-3 provides: “Any person who shall abandon, in a public place, any dangerous drug, poison, or controlled substance as defined by Article 2 or Article 3 of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”
Sablon v. State, 355 S.E.2d 88 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 2× “Defendant was charged with two counts of trafficking in cocaine (OCGA § 16-13-3 (a)) for incidents occurring on March 13 and 14, 1985.”
Luckie v. State, 714 S.E.2d 358 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “2 See OCGA § 16-13-3. 3 “The state of a witness’s feelings toward the parties and his relationship to them may always be proved for the consideration of the jury.”
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.