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

O.C.G.A. § 16-13-70 (2019)

Short title

✓ 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

This article shall be known and may be cited as the “Dangerous Drug Act.”

History

Code 1933, § 79A-701, enacted by Ga. L. 1967, p. 296, § 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1985–2020 · leading case: Serna v. State, 707 S.E.2d 904 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Serna v. State, 707 S.E.2d 904 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “6 Here, the indictment accused Serna of possessing “a dangerous drug, to wit: Amyl Nitrate, in violation of Dangerous Drug Act, Code Section 16-13-70 [et seq.], in that said accused possessed a bottle of liquid labeled ‘Amsterdam Poppers[,’] also known as Amyl Nitrate, contrary…”
Awtrey v. State, 815 S.E.2d 655 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “2d 904 (2011) (evidence supported inference that defendant knew that the chemical compound in the drug to sedate his sexual battery victim was classified as a dangerous drug under the Dangerous Drug Act, OCGA § 16-13-70 ). (c) Appellants also contend that the State failed to…”
Smith v. State, 415 S.E.2d 481 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 16-13-70 et seq. The state crime lab report, which was returned prior to Smith’s indictment, showed the substance to be lidocaine.”
In the Matter of David Godley Rigdon, 837 S.E.2d 759 (Ga. 2020). · cites it 2× “Comprising these charges were eight counts of felony violation of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act (“GCSA”), in violation of OCGA § 16-13-30 (a); one count of conspiracy to violate the GCSA, in violation of OCGA § 16-13-33; one count of sale/possession/distribution of…”
Tibbs v. State, 438 S.E.2d 706 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “The evidence showed that the appellant in fact sold a witness lidocaine, a dangerous drug under OCGA § 16-13-70. The trial court charged the jury on OCGA § 16-13-30 but additionally charged on the unlawful sale or distribution of a non-controlled substance represented to be a…”
Hall v. State, 384 S.E.2d 428 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “The trial court sentenced defendant to a three-year prison term for violation of the Dangerous Drug Act (OCGA § 16-13-70 et seq.), which is a misdemeanor under OCGA § 16-13-79.”
Lamons v. State, 335 S.E.2d 652 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 4× “, by selling ephedrine (a non-scheduled drug) on the express representation that it was a controlled substance, methamphetamine.”
Ricky Awtrey v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “518, 520 (1) ( 707 SE2d 904 ) (2011) (evidence supported inference that defendant knew that the chemical compound in the drug to sedate his sexual battery victim was classified as a dangerous drug under the Dangerous Drug Act, OCGA § 16-13-70). (c) Appellants also contend that…”
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.