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.
A person who uses threats or force in accordance with Code Section 16-3-21, relating to the use of force in defense of self or others, Code Section 16-3-23, relating to the use of force in defense of a habitation, or Code Section 16-3-24, relating to the use of force in defense of property other than a habitation, has no duty to retreat and has the right to
stand his or her ground and use force as provided in said Code sections, including deadly force.
History
Code 1981, § 16-3-23.1, enacted by Ga. L. 2006, p. 477, § 1/SB 396.
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Reversible error in failing to charge jury on lack of duty to retreat. - Trial court committed reversible error in failing to charge the jury on the lack of a duty to retreat under O.C.G.A. § 16-3-23.1 because self-defense, O.C.G.A. § 16-3-21(a), was the defendant’s sole defense, and the issue of retreat was squarely placed in issue by the prosecutor’s cross-examination of the defendant, by the defendant’s explanation of why the defendant did not drive away from the victim, whom the defendant characterized as the aggressor, and by the prosecutor’s closing argument; the evidence of the defendant’s guilt was not overwhelming, given that the case turned solely on the credibility of the defendant, the victim, and the other witnesses. Hill v. State, 310 Ga. App. 695, 713 S.E.2d 891 (2011). Plain error not shown for failing to charge on no duty to retreat. - Under a plain error analysis in the defendant’s trial for murder, the trial court did not err when the court failed to charge the jury that one acting in defense of self has no duty to retreat because the jury charges given in the case fairly informed the jury
as to the law of self-defense and the defendant failed to affirmatively show that the failure to charge on the duty to retreat probably affected the outcome of the trial. Shaw v. State, 292 Ga. 871, 742 S.E.2d 707 (2013). Plain error not shown for failing to charge on no duty to retreat. - When the rightful owner of the parcel on which the defendant resided hired a tow truck company to enter the property to remove old vehicles parked on the parcel, and the defendant shot and killed one of the tow truck company employees, the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury that a person who was justified in using force to defend a habitation had no duty to retreat did not constitute plain error because the trial court’s instructions covered the law of justification in general, and specifically covered the law of justification with respect to use of force in defense of habitation; and the defendant failed to make an affirmative showing that the alleged erroneous instructions likely affected the outcome of the proceedings. Reed v. State, 304 Ga. 400, 819 S.E.2d 44 (2018). Cited in Webb v. State, 284 Ga. 122, 663 S.E.2d 690 (2008).
RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. - Construction and application of ‘‘make my day’’ and ‘‘stand your ground’’ statutes, 76 A.L.R.6th 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
23
cases (
8 in the last 5 years), 2008–2024 · leading case:
Hughes v. State, 861 S.E.2d 94 (Ga. 2021).
Hughes v. State, 861 S.E.2d 94 (Ga. 2021).
· cites it 8× “” OCGA § 16-3-23.1. If his use of force falls within these parameters, he “shall be immune from criminal prosecution.”
Priester v. State, 317 Ga. 477 (Ga. 2023).
· cites it 7× “15 OCGA § 16-3-23.1 says in full: A person who uses threats or force in accordance with Code Section 16-3-21, relating to the use of force in defense of self or others, Code Section 16-3-23, relating to the use of force in defense of a habitation, or Code Section 16-3-24,…”
Arnold v. State, 805 S.E.2d 94 (Ga. 2017).
· cites it 6× “But OCGA § 16-3-23.1 clearly provides that a person who is authorized to use force to defend himself is under no obligation to retreat, regardless of whether retreating may have been a “more reasonable” option.”
Shaw v. State, 742 S.E.2d 707 (Ga. 2013).
· cites it 2× “OCGA § 16-3-23.1 provides: A person who uses threats or force in accordance with Code Section 16-3-21, relating to the use of force in defense of self or others, Code Section 16-3-23, relating to the use of force in defense of a habitation, or Code Section 16-3-24, relating to…”
Gude v. State, 874 S.E.2d 84 (Ga. 2022).
· cites it 4× “OCGA § 16-3-23.1. With regard to the timing of Gude’s motion, as we have previously discussed, 6 We note that this exception is not relevant to the case before us, as OCGA § 16-3-23 provides for the use of force against another “when and to the extent that he or she reasonably…”
Barrett v. State, 733 S.E.2d 304 (Ga. 2012).
· cites it 2× “See OCGA § 16-3-23.1 (providing that a person who uses force in accordance with Code Section 16-3-23 has no duty to retreat).”
Bradford v. State, 792 S.E.2d 684 (Ga. 2016).
· cites it 2× “” Appellant argues the charge was erroneous because it did not include the phrase “including deadly force” which appears in OCGA § 16-3-23.1, the statute which sets forth the defense of justification.”
State v. COPELAND (Three Cases), 850 S.E.2d 736 (Ga. 2020).
· cites it 2× “11 person must also prove by a preponderance of the evidence that such potentially lethal force was based on a reasonable belief that the force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury at the hands of the alleged victim or to prevent the commission of a forcible…”
Calmer v. State, 846 S.E.2d 40 (Ga. 2020).
· cites it 2× “4 The statute on no duty to retreat provides: A person who uses threats or force in accordance with Code Section 16-3-21, relating to the use of force in defense of self or others, Code Section 16-3-23, relating to the use of force in defense of a habitation, or Code Section…”
McNeil v. State, 669 S.E.2d 111 (Ga. 2008).
· cites it 4× “Instead, I am carrying out my duty to review the evidence under the constitutional standard set forth by the United States Supreme Court.”
Reed v. State, 819 S.E.2d 44 (Ga. 2018).
· cites it 4× “5 See OCGA § 16-3-23.1. 6 Even assuming the evidence showed appellant was not the aggressor and that the jury could find his use of force was justified, and also assuming, without deciding, that the prosecutor's questions to appellant about why he did not call the police raised…”
Redding v. State, 858 S.E.2d 469 (Ga. 2021).
· cites it 2× “No evidence supports Redding’s claim that Varner was the aggressor, and he therefore was not entitled to a jury instruction under OCGA § 16-3-23.1. This Court further held in Hoffler that even assuming that some evidence existed that Hoffler was not the original aggressor, 13…”
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.