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.
Except as authorized by this article, it is unlawful for any person to possess, have under his control, manufacture, deliver, distribute, dispense, administer, sell, or possess with intent to distribute a counterfeit substance. Any person who violates this Code section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
History
Code 1981, § 16-13-78.2, enacted by Ga. L. 1985, p. 1219, § 11.
Annotations
Code Commission notes. Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in
1985, the term “subsection” in the second sentence of this Code section was changed to “Code section”.
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Evidence in other prosecutions. - In a proceeding against defendant for possession of cocaine, the trial court erred in admitting similar transaction evidence of defendant’s possession of counterfeit cocaine when defendant was not given
notice of the state’s intent to introduce evidence of that crime. Crawford v. State, 230 Ga. App. 568, 497 S.E.2d 45, 1998 Ga. App. LEXIS 216 (1998), cert. denied, No. S98C0853, 1998 Ga. LEXIS 597 (Ga. May 22, 1998).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
2
cases, 1995–1998 · leading case:
Crawford v. State, 497 S.E.2d 45 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998).
Crawford v. State, 497 S.E.2d 45 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 4× “Crawford contends that the trial court erred in admitting testimony about the counterfeit cocaine when he was not given notice of the State’s intent to introduce evidence of that crime, an independent misdemeanor violative of OCGA § 16-13-78.2. See Pless v. State, 218 Ga.”
Pless v. State, 462 S.E.2d 472 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 2× “At the point at which the chalk was found, even assuming that the officer knew immediately that it was chalk, the officers had probable cause to believe that Pless was possessing with intent to distribute a “counterfeit substance” in violation of OCGA §§ 16-13-78.2 and 16-13-79.…”
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.