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.
When an offense in this part measures a controlled substance or marijuana by weight or quantity, the defendant’s knowledge of such weight or quantity shall not be an essential element of the offense, and the state shall not have the burden of proving that a defendant knew the weight or quantity of the controlled substance or marijuana in order to be convicted of an offense.
History
Code 1981, § 16-13-54.1, enacted by Ga. L. 2013, p. 222, § 6/HB 349.
Annotations
Editor’s notes. Ga. L. 2013, p. 222, § 21/HB 349, not codified by the General Assembly, provides: “This Act shall become effective on July 1, 2013, and shall apply to
offenses which occur on or after that date. Any offense occurring before July 1, 2013, shall be governed by the statute in effect at the time of such offense.” Law reviews. For article, “Appeal and Error: Appeal or Certiorari by State in Criminal Cases,” see 30 Georgia St. U.L. Rev. 17 (2013).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
2
cases, 2014–2020 · leading case:
Scott v. State, 757 S.E.2d 106 (Ga. 2014).
Scott v. State, 757 S.E.2d 106 (Ga. 2014).
· cites it 4× “This is reinforced by the General Assembly’s enactment of OCGA § 16-13-54.1, 3 effective July 1, 2013, which expressly provides that a *42 defendant’s knowledge of the weight or quantity of the controlled substance is not to be an essential element of the offense so that it must…”
Maverick Brown v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 6× “But OCGA § 16-13-54.1 provides that if an offense in this part measures a controlled substance or marijuana by weight or quantity, the defendant’s knowledge of such weight or quantity shall not be an essential element of the offense, and the [S]tate shall not have the burden 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.