"Prosecutor" defined.

- "Prosecutor," for purposes of this section, was one who instigates a prosecution by making an affidavit charging a named person with the commission of a penal offense on which a warrant was issued or an indictment or accusation was based. Sampson v. State, 43 Ga. App. 89, 157 S.E. 915 (1931); In re Herring, 185 Ga. App. 541, 365 S.E.2d 139 (1988).

"Prosecutor" for purposes of this section was the person who voluntarily goes before the grand jury with the prosecutor's complaint. Sampson v. State, 43 Ga. App. 89, 157 S.E. 915 (1931).

Evidence that return of "no bill, malicious prosecution" is not well-founded.

- When a prosecutor is required by rule to show cause why the prosecutor should not be compelled to pay the costs of a criminal case, because of a return by the grand jury of "no bill, malicious prosecution" upon a bill of indictment, it is not incompetent for the prosecutor to show by evidence that such return was not well-founded in the fact. Green v. State, 112 Ga. 52, 37 S.E. 93 (1900).

Whether paragraph (a)(2) or (a)(3) is applicable depends on attachment of jeopardy.

- Paragraph (3) (see paragraph (a)(3)) of this section applied when the prosecution is abandoned before the trial, that is, before the trial has reached such a stage as to put the defendant in jeopardy. Paragraph (2) of the section (see paragraph (a)(2)) applied when the trial has reached such a stage as to put the defendant in jeopardy and the jury to find the prosecution to be malicious. Thus, if before the defendant is put in jeopardy the prosecutor abandons the prosecution, the prosecutor may be liable for the costs, but, if the trial before the jury has reached such a stage as to put the defendant in jeopardy it then becomes a jury question whether or not the prosecution is malicious, and, if the jury finds the prosecution is malicious, the costs may be assessed against the prosecutor. Rainey v. State, 50 Ga. App. 256, 177 S.E. 757 (1934).

Failure to endorse prosecutor's name on indictment.

- Fact that the name of the prosecutor was not endorsed upon the indictment as required by this section did not involve any right and privileges of a defendant, but only affected the prosecutor, who must pay costs upon the acquittal or discharge of the person accused under circumstances set forth in that section, and any error in this regard was not harmful to a defendant. Lewis v. State, 144 Ga. App. 847, 242 S.E.2d 725 (1978).

Execution on warrant when prosecution abandoned before trial.

- When a prosecution is abandoned before trial, the officer who issued the warrant is authorized to enter a judgment against the prosecutor for all costs and enforce the judgment by an execution in the name of the state. An execution on such judgment issued in the name of the accused in the warrant is void. Underwood v. Harvey, 106 Ga. 268, 32 S.E. 124 (1898).

Consent agreement and dismissal of prosecution for child abandonment.

- If the prosecuting attorney in a child abandonment case, and not the mother (who was the prosecuting witness), made the determination to enter into a consent agreement and to permit the dismissal of the action against the putative father, the state could not then cast the costs against the prosecuting witness, the trial court having made no finding that the mother abandoned the prosecution. In re Herring, 185 Ga. App. 541, 365 S.E.2d 139 (1988).

Cost of paternity blood test in child abandonment case.

- When the state requests pretrial paternity blood testing for a defendant charged with child abandonment, the state must initially pay the cost. A verdict incorporating a finding of parentage would authorize the court to tax the cost of the blood test against the defendant, or under certain circumstances against the prosecutor/prosecutrix or complainant. State v. Slavny, 195 Ga. App. 818, 395 S.E.2d 56 (1990).

Payment of costs may be enforced by imprisonment. Green v. State, 112 Ga. 52, 37 S.E. 93 (1900).

Cited in Lumpkin County v. Davis, 185 Ga. 393, 195 S.E. 169 (1938).

Fee for issuance of criminal warrant.

- Affiant (prosecutor) may not be required to pay the fee for the issuance of a criminal warrant at the time of such issuance. A clear intent is shown to determine the responsibility for such payment at a subsequent time than at the time of the issuance of the criminal warrant. 1969 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 69-364.

ALR.

- Appealability of order or judgment awarding or denying costs but making no other adjudication, 54 A.L.R.2d 927.