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.
Statute text
In any criminal proceeding, the crime shall be considered to have been committed in any county in which an incident of racketeering occurred or in which an interest or control of an enterprise or real or personal property is acquired or maintained.
History
(Code 1933, § 26-3410, enacted by Ga. L. 1982, p. 1385, § 6; Code 1981, § 16-14-11, enacted by Ga. L. 1982, p. 1385, § 12; Ga. L. 2015, p. 693, § 2-25/HB 233.)
Annotations
Editor's notes. - Ga. L. 2015, p. 693, § 4-1/HB 233, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: "This Act shall become effective on July 1, 2015, and shall apply to seizures of property for forfeiture that occur on or after that date. Any such seizure that occurs before July 1, 2015, shall be governed by the statute in effect at the time of such seizure."
Law reviews. - For article on the 2015 amendment of this Code section, see 32 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 1 (2015).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Venue adequately shown. - Defendants' RICO convictions under O.C.G.A. § 16-14-4 were upheld on appeal as sufficient evidence was presented that at least one predicate act of the conspiracy took place in Newton County, Georgia; moreover, any error in instructing the jury that the jury could find venue in any county where interest or control of an enterprise or property was acquired or maintained lacked merit. Graham v. State, 282 Ga. App. 576, 639 S.E.2d 384 (2006).
Venue for charges under the Georgia Racketeer and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), O.C.G.A. § 16-14-1 et seq., was proper against one of the three defendants in Cobb County pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 16-14-11, even though the defendant was acquitted of a conspiracy charge and the defendant personally committed no acts in Cobb County. Lowery v. State, 347 Ga. App. 26, 815 S.E.2d 625 (2018).
Cited in Chancey v. State, 256 Ga. 415, 349 S.E.2d 717 (1986); Davitte v. State, 238 Ga. App. 720, 520 S.E.2d 239 (1999); Brannon v. State, 243 Ga. App. 28, 530 S.E.2d 761 (2000).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases, 1986–2018 · leading case:
Chancey v. State, 349 S.E.2d 717 (Ga. 1986).
Chancey v. State, 349 S.E.2d 717 (Ga. 1986).
· cites it 4× “” OCGA § 16-14-11. The remaining provisions of the state and federal RICO statutes are not applicable here and, therefore, will not be reviewed.”
Lowery v. State, 815 S.E.2d 625 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 6× “" See former OCGA § 16-14-11. 6 Here, the only incidents of racketeering activity that the indictment alleges occurred in Cobb County are incidents of mail fraud under 18 U.”
Dover v. State, 385 S.E.2d 417 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 2× “OCGA § 16-14-11 provides that “[i]n any criminal proceeding brought pursuant to this chapter, the crime shall be considered to have been committed in any county in which an incident of racketeering occurred or in which an interest or control of an enterprise or real or personal…”
Graham v. State, 639 S.E.2d 384 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “OCGA § 16-14-11 provides that in a criminal RICO proceeding “the crime shall be considered to have been committed in any county in which an incident of racketeering occurred or in which an interest or control of an enterprise or real or personal property is acquired or…”
Brannon v. State, 530 S.E.2d 761 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “14 OCGA § 16-14-11; see also Chancey v. State, 256 Ga.”
Davitte v. State, 520 S.E.2d 239 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “OCGA § 16-14-11. Thus, at least one of the predicate acts for the RICO charge must have been committed in the county in which the criminal proceeding is brought.”
Susan Lorraine Weidman v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 4× “” OCGA § 16-14-11. When used as an indefinite article, “an” refers to a person or thing that is not identified or specified, as opposed to the definite article “the.”
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.