Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 17-17-9 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 17-17-9 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 17-17-9

TITLE 17 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Section 17. Crime Victims' Bill of Rights, 17-17-1 through 17-17-16.

ARTICLE 2 MISDEMEANOR CASES

17-17-9. Exclusion of testifying victim from criminal proceedings; separate victims' waiting areas.

  1. A victim has the right to be present at all criminal proceedings in which the accused has the right to be present. A victim or member of the immediate family of a victim shall not be excluded from any portion of any hearing, trial, or proceeding pertaining to the offense based solely on the fact that such person is subpoenaed to testify unless it is established that such victim or family member is a material and necessary witness to such hearing, trial, or proceeding and the court finds that there is a substantial probability that such person's presence would impair the conduct of a fair trial. The provisions of this Code section shall not be construed as impairing the authority of a judge to remove a person from a trial or hearing or any portion thereof for the same causes and in the same manner as the rules of court or law provides for the exclusion or removal of the accused. A motion to exclude a victim or family members from the courtroom for any reason other than misconduct shall be made and determined prior to jeopardy attaching.
  2. A victim of a criminal offense who has been or may be subpoenaed to testify at such hearing or trial shall be exempt from the provisions of Code Section 24-6-615 requiring sequestration; provided, however, that the court shall require that the victim be scheduled to testify as early as practical in the proceedings.
  3. If the victim is excluded from the courtroom, the victim shall have the right to wait in an area separate from the accused, from the family and friends of the accused, and from witnesses for the accused during any judicial proceeding involving the accused, provided that such separate area is available and its use in such a manner practical. If such a separate area is not available or practical, the court, upon request of the victim made through the prosecuting attorney, shall attempt to minimize the victim's contact with the accused, the accused's relatives and friends, and witnesses for the accused during any such judicial proceeding.

(Code 1981, §17-17-9, enacted by Ga. L. 1995, p. 385, § 2; Ga. L. 2010, p. 214, § 12/HB 567; Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 35/HB 24; Ga. L. 2014, p. 866, § 17/SB 340.)

The 2011 amendment, effective January 1, 2013, substituted "Code Section 24-6-616" for "Code Section 24-9-61" in the middle of subsection (b). See editor's note for applicability.

The 2014 amendment, effective April 29, 2014, part of an Act to revise, modernize, and correct the Code, substituted "Code Section 24-6-615" for "Code Section 24-6-616" in subsection (b).

Code Commission notes.

- Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 2010, "the" was inserted preceding "same manner" in the third sentence of subsection (a).

Editor's notes.

- Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 101/HB 24, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that this Act shall apply to any motion made or hearing or trial commenced on or after January 1, 2013.

Law reviews.

- For article on the 2011 amendment of this Code section, see 28 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 1 (2011).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Victim's right to be present at trial.

- Trial court did not commit reversible error when the court permitted the state to bring the first victim into the courtroom because evidence of the first victim's condition was clearly relevant to the state's cruelty to children in the first and second degree charges, including that the defendant caused the first victim bodily harm by rendering the first victim's brain, a member of the first victim's body, useless by violently shaking the victim, causing permanent brain damage; the probative value of viewing the victim was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice; and under the Crime Victims' Bill of Rights statute, O.C.G.A. § 17-17-1 et seq., the first victim had the right to be present at the trial. Freeman v. State, 333 Ga. App. 6, 775 S.E.2d 258 (2015).

Victim could testify after being present during trial.

- Trial court did not abuse the court's discretion in allowing the victim to testify as a rebuttal witness after the defendant testified, after the victim had remained in the courtroom for the entire trial. Percell v. State, 346 Ga. App. 219, 816 S.E.2d 344 (2018).

Cited in Davis v. State, 299 Ga. 180, 787 S.E.2d 221 (2016).

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 17-17-9

Total Results: 3  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Davis v. State, 299 Ga. 180 (Ga. 2016).

Cited 126 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 6, 2016 | 787 S.E.2d 221

...estration provision of the old Evidence Code,4 and instead tracks in pertinent part the language of Federal Rule of Evidence 615 as that rule read in 2011. As we have 3 OGGA § 24-6-616 says, “Subject to the provisions of Code Section 17-17-9 [elaborating on a crime victim’s right to be present during court proceedings], the victim of a criminal offense shall be entitled to be present in any court exercising jurisdiction over such offense.” 4 Former O...
Copy

Nicely v. State, 291 Ga. 788 (Ga. 2012).

Cited 39 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 29, 2012 | 733 S.E.2d 715, 2012 Fulton County D. Rep. 3348

...trial pursuant to the rule of witness sequestration, OCGA § 24-9-61, while the mother of Tayore was permitted to attend the trial pursuant to a statutory exemption to the rule of sequestration contained in the Crime Victims’ Bill of Rights, OCGA § 17-17-9 (b)....
...tify at such hearing or trial shall be exempt from the provisions of Code Section 24-9-61 requiring sequestration; provided, however, that the court shall require that the victim be scheduled to testify as early as practical in the proceedings. OCGA § 17-17-9 (b)....
...ursuant to the general statutory rule of sequestration. So, *792as we understand it, Nicely actually is challenging the constitutionality of the statutory rule of sequestration, OCGA § 24-9-61, as amended by the Crime Victims’Bill of Rights, OCGA § 17-17-9 (b), and as applied in this case. Nicely also contends in his briefs that Nicely himself was denied equal protection hy the differing treatment of his father and Rogers....
Copy

Thompson v. State, 843 S.E.2d 794 (Ga. 2020).

Cited 15 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 1, 2020 | 308 Ga. 854

...excluded so that each witness cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses, and it may make the order on its own motion.”). The State requested that Peggy’s children and stepdaughter be excused from the rule under the Crime Victims’ Bill of Rights, in particular OCGA § 17-17-9, as they were qualifying members of the victim’s family under the statute. Thompson objected, but the trial court excused these witnesses from sequestration based on OCGA § 17-17-9....
...OCGA § 24-6-616 carves out an exception to the general rule of sequestration and provides that “the victim of a criminal offense shall be entitled to be present in any court exercising jurisdiction over such offense.” OCGA § 24-6-616’s exception to the rule of sequestration is subject to OCGA § 17-17-9, which provides in pertinent part: A victim or member of the immediate family of a victim shall not be excluded from ....
...jeopardy attaching.7 Before the jury was impaneled and sworn, the State asked that the witnesses be excluded from sequestration because they were Peggy’s children. The trial court exempted the children from the rule of sequestration. Here, OCGA § 17-17-9 gave the trial court discretion to allow Peggy’s adult children to remain in the courtroom, as her children are both “victims” and “immediate family members” under the language of the statute. Under OCGA § 17-17-3 (11) (B), when a crime victim is deceased, “victim” is defined to include “[a]n adult child” if the crime victim’s spouse is either in custody for an offense or the defendant. And while OCGA § 17-17-9 does not explicitly define who constitutes an “immediate family member” under the statute, the phrase is commonly understood to include a person’s 7 Jeopardy attaches in a jury trial when a “jury is impaneled and sworn.” Alexander v....
...Therefore, the trial court could properly except these witnesses from the rule of sequestration as either victims or as immediate family members of a victim under the Crime Victims’ Bill of Rights. At trial, Thompson did not ask for findings from the trial court that, under OCGA § 17-17-9, Peggy’s children and stepchild were material and necessary witnesses, or that their presence would impair the conduct of a fair trial, such that the rule of sequestration should still apply to these witnesses....