O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 17-10-41 (2019)

Persons required to be present at executions

✓ 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

There shall be present at the execution of a convicted person the superintendent of the state correctional institution or a deputy superintendent thereof, at least three executioners, two physicians to determine when death supervenes, and other correctional officers, assistants, technicians, and witnesses as determined by the commissioner of corrections. In addition, the convicted person may request the presence of his or her counsel, a member of the clergy, and a reasonable number of relatives and friends, provided that the total number of witnesses appearing at the request of the convicted person shall be determined by the commissioner of corrections.

History

Ga. L. 1924, p. 195, § 4; Code 1933, § 27-2515; Ga. L. 1956, p. 161, § 32; Ga. L. 1988, p. 252, § 1; Ga. L. 2000, p. 947, § 4.

Annotations

Editor’s notes. - Ga. L. 2000, p. 947, § 1, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: ‘‘It is the intention of the General Assembly to provide for execution by lethal injection for persons sentenced to death after conviction of capital crimes committed on or after May 1, 2000. It is

the further intention of the General Assembly that persons sentenced to death for crimes committed prior to the effective date of this Act be executed by lethal injection if the Supreme Court of the United States declares that electrocution violates the Constitution of the United States or if the Supreme Court of Georgia declares that electrocution violates the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of Georgia.’’

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Cited in Irwin v. Lawrence, 196 Ga. App. 202, 26 S.E.2d 251 (1943). OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Other persons admitted only with defendant’s consent. - Since this section explicitly enumerated who may be witnesses at an execution, it was conclusive that the General Assembly intended to exclude any other witnesses except the condemned person’s counsel, relatives, and such clergy and friends as the condemned may desire. This exception for designated persons requires a determination by the condemned person, which must be conveyed to the Department of Corrections (now Department of Offender Rehabilitation) within a reasonable time before the execution. If the condemned person should express a desire to have some member of the press present the department would be legally authorized to admit the press. Otherwise, the department was required by this section to restrict those present to the ones named in

this section, and others requested by the condemned. 1963-65 Op. Att’y Gen. p. 346. Discretion as to who may be present. - The only person with any discretion in deciding who shall be present at an execution is the condemned person personally. Further, the condemned person has no discretion as to individual members of the general public who are not the condemned’s counsel, relatives, and such clergy and friends as the condemned may desire. 1960-61 Op. Att’y Gen. p. 354. Residence of electrician immaterial. - No reference was made by this section to the residence of the electrician. The indefinite article ‘‘an’’ was used and therefore the place of residence of the electrician used in electrocutions was immaterial under the law. 1948-49 Op. Att’y Gen. p. 281.

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 21 Am. Jur. 2d, Criminal Law, § 718 et seq. C.J.S. - 24 C.J.S., Criminal Procedure and Rights of the Accused, § 2429 et seq.

ALR. - Validity of rules and regulations concerning viewing of execution of death penalty, 107 A.L.R.5th 291.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2020–2020 · leading case: William Emmett LeCroy, Jr. v. United States, 975 F.3d 1192 (11th Cir. 2020).
William Emmett LeCroy, Jr. v. United States, 975 F.3d 1192 (11th Cir. 2020). “” This provision, LeCroy contends, incorporates Ga. Code Ann. § 17-10-41 , which states that “the convicted person may request the presence of his or her counsel.”
In the Matter of the Fed. Bureau of Prisons' Execution Protocol Cases (D.D.C. 2020). “at 9 (citing Ga. Code Ann. § 17-10-41 ).) While it is true that the 2019 Protocol does not require two physicians to be present during an execution, Defendants stated in a filing that they have arranged for two physicians to attend LeCroy’s execution to comply with Georgia’s…”
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.