CopyCited 81 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jan 12, 2009 | 284 Ga. 803, 2009 Fulton County D. Rep. 158
...It is the intent of the General Assembly in enacting this chapter to seek the eradication of criminal activity by street gangs by focusing upon patterns of criminal gang activity and upon the organized nature of street gangs which together are the chief source of terror created by street gangs. OCGA §
16-15-2 (a), (b), (c)....
...Our interpretation of OCGA §§
16-15-3 and
16-15-4(a) is the most consistent with the above-quoted legislative statement of intent "to seek the eradication of criminal activity by street gangs by focusing upon patterns of criminal gang activity and upon the organized nature of street gangs. . . ." OCGA §
16-15-2(c)....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 21, 2021 | 311 Ga. 784
...injured by reason of criminal gang activity if the factfinder
determines that the action is consistent with the . . . codified
legislative intent [of the Gang Act]. . . . Thus, whether the present
action is consistent with the intent set forth in OCGA §
16-15-2 is
not a threshold issue for courts to resolve[.]”)....
...All
averments of a cause of action under this subsection shall
be stated with particularity. No judgment shall be
awarded unless the finder of fact determines that the
action is consistent with the intent of the General
Assembly as set forth in Code Section
16-15-2.
(d) The state, any political subdivision thereof, or
any person aggrieved by a criminal street gang or
criminal gang activity may bring an action to enjoin
violations of this chapter in the same manner as pr...
...pressed in OCGA § 16-15-
2.” (Emphasis in original.) Star Residential, supra,
354 Ga. App. at
634 (1). Accordingly, the Court of Appeals determined that whether
Hernandez’s cause of action was “consistent with the intent set forth
in OCGA §
16-15-2 [was] not a threshold issue for courts to resolve,”
and that the court had to “give effect to that policy choice” of the
General Assembly....
...c).5 The statute
simply does not say that a factfinder must determine the meaning
of subsection (c) in the first instance, which is a role reserved for the
courts.6
Judgment reversed. All the Justices concur.
5 In this regard, OCGA §
16-15-2 acts as a limit on the scope of conduct
for which defendants may be held liable for damages under OCGA §
16-15-7
(c). For example, pursuant to OCGA §
16-15-2 (a):
...
It is not the intent of this chapter to interfere with the exercise of
the constitutionally protected rights of freedom of expression and
association....
