O.C.G.A.
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.
The General Assembly hereby finds and declares it to be the policy of this state that victims of crimes should be accorded certain basic rights just as the accused are accorded certain basic rights. These rights include: (1) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any scheduled court proceedings or any changes to such proceedings; (2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of the arrest, release, or escape of the accused; (3) The right not to be excluded from any scheduled court proceedings, except as provided in this chapter or as otherwise required by law; (4) The right to be heard at any scheduled court proceedings involving the release, plea, or sentencing of the accused; (5) The right to file a written objection in any parole proceedings involving the accused; (6) The right to confer with the prosecuting attorney in any criminal prosecution related to the victim; (7) The right to restitution as provided by law; (8) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay; and (9) The right to be treated fairly and with dignity by all criminal justice agencies involved in the case.
History
Code 1981, § 17-17-1, enacted by Ga. L. 1995, p. 385, § 2; Ga. L. 2010, p. 214, § 6/HB 567.
Annotations
Cross references. - Examination of sexual assault victims, § 35-1-2.
Law reviews. - For article, ‘‘Criminal Procedure,’’ see 27 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 29 (2011).
RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. - Validity, construction, and application of state constitutional or statu-
tory victims’ bill of rights, 91 A.L.R.5th 343.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2012–2022 · leading case:
Pestana v. the State, 762 S.E.2d 178 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014).
Pestana v. the State, 762 S.E.2d 178 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 16× “3 Upon learning of the discharge, the State filed on September 5, 2013, a motion for reconsideration stating its lack of notice and the failure to notify any victims in accordance with OCGA § 17-17-1 et seq. The superior court held a hearing at which the State, Pestana, Berrong,…”
Nicely v. State, 733 S.E.2d 715 (Ga. 2012).
· cites it 2× “See OCGA § 17-17-1. Nicely does not even contend that the differential treatment of his father and Rogers bears no rational relationship to legitimate state interests, and we conclude that it certainly does.”
Percell v. The State., 816 S.E.2d 344 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “Percell argues that the trial court erred by allowing the victim to remain in the courtroom for the entire trial and then testify as a rebuttal witness after Percell testified.”
Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. Lori Belinda Hicks (Ga. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 2× “custody for an offense or the defendant: (i) The spouse; (ii) An adult child if division (i) of this subparagraph does not apply; (iii) A parent if divisions (i) and (ii) of this subparagraph do not apply; (iv) A sibling if divisions (i) through (iii) of this subparagraph do not…”
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.