O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 16-4-2 (2019)

Conviction for criminal attempt where crime completed

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
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.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A person may be convicted of the offense of criminal attempt if the crime attempted was actually committed in pursuance of the attempt but may not be convicted of both the criminal attempt and the completed crime.

History

Code 1933, § 26-1004, enacted by Ga. L. 1968, p. 1249, § 1.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Lesser included offenses. - Aggravated assault with intent to commit murder and with a deadly weapon may be charged as lesser included offenses of murder. Hall v. State, 163 Ga. App. 515, 295 S.E.2d 194 (1982). When an attempt to commit one crime can only be proved by proof of another, greater, consummated crime, the attempt of the former cannot possibly be ‘‘included’’ in or ‘‘lesser’’ than the latter. Cannon v. State, 167 Ga. App. 225, 305 S.E.2d 910 (1983). One may be convicted of assault, though criminal act intended was completed. - It is intent of legislature that although assault may be a criminal attempt, and even though criminal act intended be completed, a conviction for assault is authorized. Williams v. State, 141 Ga. App. 201, 233 S.E.2d 48 (1977). One may be convicted of simple assault though battery was committed. - Recognizing fact that assault is nothing more than an attempted battery, (and thus that every battery necessarily includes an assault) by virtue of O.C.G.A. §§ 16-4-2 and 16-5-22, it is presently lawful to convict for simple assault even though proof shows that a battery was committed. C.L.T. v. State, 157 Ga. App. 180, 276 S.E.2d 862 (1981). Not entitled to jury charge on lesser included offense of attempted armed robbery. - Trial court did not err by refusing to charge the jury that the jury could find the defendant guilty of attempted armed robbery as an included offense of aggravated assault with intent to rob since the defendant was not entitled to a charge or verdict of attempted armed robbery when that offense could only be proved by showing that the defendant brandished a weapon in the faces of the victims with the intent to rob the victims, that is, that the defendant actually committed the greater offense, a completed aggravated assault with the intent to rob. Since the evidence that proved that the defendant committed an attempted armed

robbery necessarily proved that the defendant committed the greater, completed crime of aggravated assault with intent to rob, there was no evidence that the defendant committed only the offense of attempted armed robbery and, therefore, the defendant was not entitled to a charge on that lesser included offense. Pilkington v. State, 298 Ga. App. 317, 680 S.E.2d 164 (2009), cert. denied, No. S09C1717, 2010 Ga. LEXIS 54 (Ga. 2010). Recovery for personal injuries. - Legislative purpose of the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, O.C.G.A. § 16-14-1 et seq. does not preclude recovery for personal injuries. Reaugh v. Inner Harbour Hosp., 214 Ga. App. 259, 447 S.E.2d 617 (1994). Evidence sufficient for giving charge on criminal attempt. - See Plummer v. State, 168 Ga. App. 108, 308 S.E.2d 210 (1983). Convictions for attempt and completed offenses involving different victims. - Because the defendant’s seven attempted armed robbery convictions involved different victims than the defendant’s 13 completed armed robberies, the defendant victimized 20 separate individuals and, thus, the defendant was properly convicted and sentenced on each of the 20 counts. Houston v. State, 302 Ga. 35, 805 S.E.2d 34 (2017). Cited in Bearden v. State, 122 Ga. App. 25, 176 S.E.2d 243 (1970); Adams v. State, 129 Ga. App. 839, 201 S.E.2d 649 (1973); Jones v. State, 238 Ga. 51, 230 S.E.2d 865 (1976); Scott v. State, 141 Ga. App. 848, 234 S.E.2d 685 (1977); Printup v. State, 142 Ga. App. 42, 234 S.E.2d 840 (1977); Harper v. State, 157 Ga. App. 480, 278 S.E.2d 28 (1981); Schwerdtfeger v. State, 167 Ga. App. 19, 305 S.E.2d 834 (1983); Parham v. State, 218 Ga. App. 42, 460 S.E.2d 78 (1995); Spivey v. State, 243 Ga. App. 785, 534 S.E.2d 498 (2000); Sewell v. State, 244 Ga. App. 449, 536 S.E.2d 173 (2000); Colbert v. State, 255 Ga. App. 182, 564 S.E.2d 787 (2002); Calloway v. State, 303 Ga. 48, 810 S.E.2d 105 (2018).

CRIMINAL ATTEMPT, CONSPIRACY, & SOLICITATION

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 21 Am. Jur. 2d, Criminal Law, §§ 21, 149. C.J.S. - 42 C.J.S., Indictments and Informations, § 317. ALR. - Conviction or acquittal of attempt to commit particular crime as bar to prosecution for conspiracy to commit same crime, or vice versa, 53 A.L.R.2d 622.

Attempt to commit assault as criminal offense, 79 A.L.R.2d 597. Application of felony-murder doctrine where the felony relied upon is an includible offense with the homicide, 40 A.L.R.3d 1341.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1983–2021 · leading case: Scott v. State, 848 S.E.2d 448 (Ga. 2020).
Scott v. State, 848 S.E.2d 448 (Ga. 2020). · cites it 4× “” OCGA § 16-4-2. Because Scott could have been convicted of criminal attempt when the attempted crime was actually successfully completed, he cannot show that he was surprised by the trial evidence.”
Walker v. State, 859 S.E.2d 25 (Ga. 2021). · cites it 4× “See OCGA § 16-4-2 (“A person may be convicted of the offense of criminal attempt if the crime attempted was actually committed in pursuance of the attempt .”
Calloway v. State, 810 S.E.2d 105 (Ga. 2018). · cites it 2× “Similarly, OCGA § 16-13-30 makes it unlawful "to purchase, possess, or have under his or her control any controlled substance," or "manufacture, deliver, distribute, dispense, administer, sell, or possess with intent to distribute any controlled substance." OCGA § 16-13-30 (a),…”
Calloway v. State, 303 Ga. 48 (Ga. 2018). · cites it 2× “Similarly, OCGA § 16-13-30 makes it unlawful “to purchase, possess, or have under his or her control any controlled substance,” or “manufacture, deliver, distribute, dispense, administer, sell, or possess with intent to distribute any controlled substance.”
Houston v. State, 805 S.E.2d 34 (Ga. 2017). · cites it 2× “SeeOCGA § 16-4-2 (“Aperson... may not be convicted of both the criminal attempt and the completed crime.”
Kerr v. State, 387 S.E.2d 355 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “Although we have found no authority on this issue, and neither appellants nor the State have cited us to any, we find analogous the prohibition explicitly stated in OCGA § 16-4-2 with regard to criminal attempt: “A person may be convicted of the offense of criminal attempt if…”
Sewell v. State, 536 S.E.2d 173 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “[15] OCGA § 16-4-2. [16] Brown v. State, 262 Ga.”
Perdomo v. State, 837 S.E.2d 762 (Ga. 2020). · cites it 2× “” OCGA § 16-4-2. 8 indeed, he was identified as the driver of the vehicle in an incident occurring just hours earlier — and he was recorded in a jailhouse telephone conversation implicating himself in the week-long crime spree.”
Pilkington v. State, 680 S.E.2d 164 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “Decided June 12, 2009 An attempt to commit a crime may be found as a lesser included offense even though the greater crime was actually committed (OCGA § 16-4-2 (Code Ann. § 26-1004)); but where an attempt to commit one crime can only be proved by proof of another, greater,…”
Schwerdtfeger v. State, 305 S.E.2d 834 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 16-4-2 (Code Ann. § 26-1004). Decided June 16, 1983.”
Spivey v. State, 534 S.E.2d 498 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 16-4-2. Spivey argues that a charge on criminal attempt is supported by her three statements to the police.”
Colbert v. State, 564 S.E.2d 787 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 16-4-2. The evidence revealed that Colbert undressed himself and T.”
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.