O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 17-3-2.2 (2019)

Statute of limitations

✓ 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

In addition to any periods excluded pursuant to Code Section 17-3-2, if the victim is a person who is 65 years of age or older, the applicable period within which a prosecution must be commenced under Code Section 17-3-1 or other applicable statute shall not begin to run until the violation is reported to or discovered by a law enforcement agency, prosecuting attorney, or other governmental agency, whichever occurs earlier. Such law enforcement agency or other governmental agency shall promptly report such allegation to the appropriate prosecuting attorney. Except for prosecutions for crimes for which the law provides a statute of limitations longer than 15 years, prosecution shall not commence more than 15 years after the commission of the crime.

History

Code 1981, § 17-3-2.2, enacted by Ga. L. 2000, p. 1085, § 5.

Annotations

Editor’s notes. - Ga. L. 2000, p. 1085, § 1, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: ‘‘This Act shall be known and may be cited as the ‘Georgia Protection of Elder Persons Act of 2000.’ ’’

Cross references. - Cooperative effort in development of programs relating to abuse and exploitation of persons 65 years of age or older, § 30-5-10. Law reviews. - For note on 2000 enactment of this Code section, see 17 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. (2000).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Age classification does not violate equal protection. - Supreme Court of Georgia holds that the age classification chosen in the tolling statute of O.C.G.A. § 17-3-2.2 does not violate the Equal Protection clauses of Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Para. II, and U.S. Const., amend. XIV. Harper v. State, 292 Ga. 557, 738 S.E.2d 584 (2013). Tolling requires showing victim over 65. - To apply the tolling provision of O.C.G.A. § 17-3-2.2, it must be shown

that the victim of the crime is a person over the age of 65. Harper v. State, 292 Ga. 557, 738 S.E.2d 584 (2013). Application to corporations. - O.C.G.A. § 17-3-2.2 offers no protection to the interest of any corporation or other entity which is not a person who is 65 years of age or older; that is in keeping with the principle that, generally, corporations are separate legal entities from the corporation’s shareholders. Harper v. State, 292 Ga. 557, 738 S.E.2d 584 (2013).

Construction. - Trial court erred by applying O.C.G.A. § 17-3-2.2 to the RICO and theft charges against the defendants because it was necessary for the state to show that the victim was over 65 years of age, who was the principal stockholder of the corporation, was the owner of the property allegedly stolen, not the corporation, to determine the date the crime became known to the victim. Harper v. State, 292 Ga. 557, 738 S.E.2d 584 (2013). Statute of limitations not tolled. - Trial court correctly concluded that the

four-year statute of limitation contained in O.C.G.A. § 17-3-1(c) was applicable and that the state failed to plead and prove that the tolling provisions of O.C.G.A. § 17-3-2.2 had been triggered. Consequently, the trial court did not err in granting defendants’ plea in bar. State v. Mullins, 321 Ga. App. 671, 742 S.E.2d 490 (2013). Cited in State v. Outen, 296 Ga. 40, 764 S.E.2d 848 (2014); Stubbs v. Hall, 308 Ga. 354, 840 S.E.2d 407 (2020).

RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. - Validity, construction, and application of state statutes eliminating, extending, or tolling statute of limitations

for sexual offense when DNA can provide identity of alleged perpetrator, 16 A.L.R.7th 7.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2013–2024 · leading case: Harper v. State, 738 S.E.2d 584 (Ga. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Harper v. State, 738 S.E.2d 584 (Ga. 2013). · cites it 44× “” Each count of the indictment asserted that OCGA § 17-3-2.2 applied because one of the alleged victims, Mr.”
State v. Mullins, 742 S.E.2d 490 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 12× “The State contends that the trial court erred in applying OCGA § 17-3-1 (c) instead of OCGA § 17-3-2.2, which the State argues creates a 15-year statute of limitation when the victim is over the age of 65.”
Garrison v. State, 905 S.E.2d 629 (Ga. 2024). · cites it 4× “And OCGA § 17-3-2.2 tolls the applicable period only if the victim is a particular age and until the violation is either reported or discovered by the appropriate government agency, whichever is first.”
Stubbs v. Hall, 840 S.E.2d 407 (Ga. 2020). “sident within this state”; “[t]he person committing the crime is unknown or the crime is unknown”; “[t]he accused is a government officer or employee and the crime charged is theft by conversion of public property while such an officer or employee”; or “[t]he accused is a…”
State v. Jacqueline Mullins (Ga. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 12× “The State contends that the trial court erred in applying OCGA § 17-3- 1 (c) instead of OCGA § 17-3-2.2, which the State argues creates a 15-year statute of limitation when the victim is over the age of 65.”
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.