O.C.G.A. § 16-7-85 (2019)
Hoax devices
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture, possess, transport, distribute, or use a hoax device or replica of a destructive device or detonator with the intent to cause another to believe that such hoax device or replica is a destructive device or detonator. (b) Any person convicted of a violation of this Code section shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than $10,000.00 or both or, if the defendant is a corporation, a fine
of not less than $1,000.00 or not fewer than 500 hours of community service or both for each such hoax device or replica; provided, however, that if such person communicates or transmits to another that such hoax device or replica is a destructive device or detonator with the intent to obtain the property of another person or to interfere with the ability of another person to conduct or carry on the ordinary course of business, trade, education, or government, such violation shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than five years or by a fine of not more than $25,000.00 or both or, if the defendant is a corporation, a fine of not less than $50,000.00 or not fewer than 1,000 nor more than 10,000 hours of community service or both for each such hoax device or replica.
History
(Code 1981, § 16-7-85, enacted by Ga. L. 1996, p. 416, § 3.)
Annotations
Code Commission notes. - Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1996, a semico-
lon was deleted following ‘‘$10,000.00’’ and ‘‘$25,000.00’’ in subsection (b).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Evidence sufficient for conviction. - Any rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of terroristic threats, O.C.G.A. § 16-11-37(a), hoax devices, O.C.G.A. § 16-7-85(a), and armed robbery, O.C.G.A. § 16-8-41(a), because although circumstantial, the evidence authorized the jury to exclude every reasonable hypothesis other than that the defendant
engaged in the acts that constituted the crimes; even though the defendant was apprehended while wearing clothing that did not match that described by the victims, an officer familiar with the habits of bank robbers testified that bank robbers like to wear multi-layer clothing and then shed clothes after the crime. Williams v. State, 312 Ga. App. 22, 717 S.E.2d 532 (2011).