O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 16-8-6 (2019)

Theft of lost or mislaid property

✓ 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 commits the offense of theft of lost or mislaid property when he comes into control of property that he knows or learns to have been lost or mislaid and appropriates the property to his own use without first taking reasonable measures to restore the property to the owner.

History

(Code 1933, § 26-1805, enacted by Ga. L. 1968, p. 1249, § 1.)

Annotations

Law reviews. - For survey article on criminal law and procedure, see 34 Mercer L. Rev. 89 (1982). JUDICIAL DECISIONS Variance between indictment and proof. - When the indictment mistakenly combined the elements (date, amount, and collateral) of several different loan transactions, and the evidence presented at trial did not comport with the allegations in the indictment, the conviction was reversed. Gentry v. State, 202 Ga. App. 465, 414 S.E.2d 696 (1992). Evidence sufficient for conviction. - Evidence that the defendant and the defendant’s friend came into possession of the victim’s bank deposit bag containing checks, deposit slips, and cash, which the victim had misplaced while it was being transported and which related to the victim’s business, and evidence that police

found checks belonging to the victim in the defendant’s purse and in a bag belonging to the defendant, as well as a large amount of cash in the defendant’s wallet, was sufficient to support the defendant’s conviction for theft of mislaid property as the evidence showed the defendant knew the mislaid property did not belong to the defendant and nevertheless appropriated that property to the defendant’s own use without first taking reasonable measures to restore the property to the owner. Shannon v. State, 258 Ga. App. 689, 574 S.E.2d 889 (2002). Cited in English v. State, 202 Ga. App. 751, 415 S.E.2d 659 (1992).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 50 Am. Jur. 2d, Larceny, §§ 57, 97 et seq. C.J.S. - 52B C.J.S., Larceny, §§ 46, 53. ALR. - Larceny or embezzlement by appropriating money or proceeds of paper

mistakenly delivered in excess of the amount due or intended, 14 A.L.R. 894. What constitutes tax-deductible theft loss under 26 USCS § 165, 98 A.L.R. Fed. 229.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1992–2012 · leading case: State v. Weems, 55 A.3d 921 (Md. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Weems, 55 A.3d 921 (Md. 2012). “, Ga.Code Ann. § 16-8-6 (2012) ("A person commits the offense of theft of lost or mislaid property when he comes into control of property that he knows or learns to have been lost or mislaid and appropriates the property to his own use without first taking reasonable measures to…”

English v. State, 415 S.E.2d 659 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “” OCGA § 16-8-6. Defendant Wade English split $4,000 with Deputy Greene knowing that the money was found on the roadside near a vehicle that had been stopped pursuant to a police investigation.”

Shannon v. State, 574 S.E.2d 889 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “Under OCGA § 16-8-6, “A person commits the offense of theft of lost or mislaid property when he comes into control of property that he knows or learns to have been lost or mislaid and appropriates the property to his own use without first táking reasonable measures to restore…”

Weems v. State, 36 A.3d 977 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2012). “O.C.G.A. § 16-8-6. Theft of lost or mislaid property: A person commits the offense of theft of lost or mislaid property when he comes into control of property that he knows or learns to have been lost or mislaid and appropriates the property to his own use without first taking…”

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.