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.
The acts of a person of sound mind and discretion are presumed to be the product of the person’s will but the presumption may be rebutted.
History
Code 1933, § 26-603, enacted by Ga. L. 1968, p. 1249, § 1.
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Jury instruction quoting section held unconstitutional. - Because a jury instruction which quoted O.C.G.A. § 16-2-4 in its entirety could have been understood by a reasonable juror as creating a mandatory presumption that shifted to the defendant the burden of persuasion on the element of intent, and because the charge as a whole did not explain or cure the error, the jury charge violated the Due Process Clause requirement that the state prove every element of a criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307, 105 S. Ct. 1965, 85 L. Ed. 2d 344 (1985). It is not necessary that charge to jury be in exact language of Code. Parks v. State, 234 Ga. 579, 216 S.E.2d 804 (1975). Cited in Spencer v. State, 231 Ga. 705,
203 S.E.2d 856 (1974); Bentley v. State, 131 Ga. App. 425, 205 S.E.2d 904 (1974); Nunnally v. State, 235 Ga. 693, 221 S.E.2d 547 (1975); Bradley v. State, 137 Ga. App. 670, 224 S.E.2d 778 (1976); Gatlin v. State, 236 Ga. 707, 225 S.E.2d 224 (1976); Scott v. State, 239 Ga. 46, 235 S.E.2d 522 (1977); Lunsford v. State, 145 Ga. App. 446, 243 S.E.2d 655 (1978); Harris v. State, 145 Ga. App. 675, 244 S.E.2d 620 (1978); Tucker v. State, 245 Ga. 68, 263 S.E.2d 109 (1980); Moses v. State, 245 Ga. 180, 263 S.E.2d 916 (1980); Thrift-Mart, Inc. v. Commercial Union Assurance Cos., 154 Ga. App. 344, 268 S.E.2d 397 (1980); Jackson v. State, 157 Ga. App. 580, 278 S.E.2d 152 (1981); Slaughter v. State, 162 Ga. App. 136, 290 S.E.2d 338 (1982); Whitsell v. State, 179 Ga. App. 358, 346 S.E.2d 130 (1986).
RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. - Flight as evidence of guilt, 25 A.L.R. 886. Homicide: burden of proof on defense that killing was accidental, 63 A.L.R.3d 936. Coercion, compulsion, or duress as de-
fense to charge of robbery, larceny, or related crime, 1 A.L.R.4th 481. Challenges to pre- and post-conviction forfeitures and to post-conviction restitution under animal cruelty statutes, 70 A.L.R.6th 329.
Notes of Decisions
S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Sharara, 307 S.E.2d 129 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 4× “While nature-nurturenorms may well influence what happens to us, the criminal law of Georgia, OCGA § 16-2-4 (Code Ann. § 26-603), recognizes a third area it considers of prime importance, that is, a consideration of and the presumption of voluntary free will and the resulting…”
Jacobsen v. Muller, 352 S.E.2d 604 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 4× “Nevertheless, even if a psychological therapist-patient relationship did exist, it appears that liability for malpractice could follow only if it were shown that this fiduciary relationship was exploited by (1) so gaining the trust and confidence of the patient as to deprive her…”
Nash v. State, 347 S.E.2d 651 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 4× “As the jurisdictional statement of appellant shows, Supreme Court review was sought because appellant challenged the constitutionality of two statutes, OCGA §§ 16-2-4 and 16-2-5. These relate to certain presumptions regarding a person's will and intent.”
McGahee v. State, 316 S.E.2d 832 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 4× “Similarly, appellant complains of the trial court’s refusal to give her requested charges defining “malice” and “maliciously,” and defining “intent.”
Morris v. State, 345 S.E.2d 686 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 2× “Appellant asserts that the trial court erroneously failed to charge the jury on the rebuttable presumptions that the acts of a sound person are wilful (OCGA § 16-2-4) and that a sound person *229 intends the natural and probable consequences of his acts (OCGA § 16-2-5).”
Brewton v. State, 454 S.E.2d 558 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 2× “elty to- children can be committed by raising a child in a house under circumstances constituting extremely unsanitary conditions; we conclude that when the lack of sanitation reaches such a degree that a jury can find that the acts or omissions of the parent maliciously cause a…”
Bailey v. State, 603 S.E.2d 786 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “The fact that the excused juror happened to be an African-American should not be used as a tool of convenience for the purposes of appeal.”
Whitsell v. State, 346 S.E.2d 130 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 2× “, OCGA §§ 16-2-4; 16-2-5, had already been found by the United States Supreme Court to be constitutionally impermissive.”
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.