Syfert Injury Law Firm
Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448In 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.
(Code 1981, §17-3-2.2, enacted by Ga. L. 2000, p. 1085, § 5.)
- 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.'"
- Cooperative effort in development of programs relating to abuse and exploitation of persons 65 years of age or older, § 30-5-10.
- For note on 2000 enactment of this Code section, see 17 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. (2000).
- 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).
- 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).
- 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).
- 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).
- 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).
- 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.
Total Results: 15
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2024-08-13
Snippet: commence, while OCGA §§ 17-3-2, 17-3-2.1, and 17-3-2.2 specify periods that are excluded from the various
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2023-10-11
Snippet: exception in OCGA § 17-3-2 (2)5 or the DNA exception in OCGA § 5 OCGA § 17-3-2 (2) provides that
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2022-11-02
Snippet: 31, 2012, the crime was unknown. See OCGA § 17-3-2 (2) (“The period within which a prosecution must
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2021-08-24
Snippet: person committing the crime is unknown.” OCGA § 17-3-2 (2). He also correctly notes that where the State
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2019-08-05
Citation: 831 S.E.2d 771
Snippet: identity was unknown until April 2008. See OCGA § 17-3-2 (2) (a statute of limitations is tolled during any
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2019-06-24
Citation: 830 S.E.2d 99, 306 Ga. 266
Snippet: State of Georgia until June 20, 2011." See OCGA § 17-3-2 (2).4 The gravamen of Jackson's argument is that
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2019-06-24
Citation: 830 S.E.2d 90, 306 Ga. 277
Snippet: was not known until April 14, 2013. See OCGA § 17-3-2 (2). Appellant never asserted a statute of limitation
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2019-02-18
Citation: 824 S.E.2d 249, 305 Ga. 163
Snippet: limitation on his non-murder charges under OCGA § 17-3-2 (2). Because we determine that the trial court did
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2014-10-20
Citation: 296 Ga. 40, 764 S.E.2d 848, 2014 Ga. LEXIS 812
Snippet: commence, while OCGA §§ 17-3-2, 17-3-2.1, and 17-3-2.2 specify periods that are excluded from the various
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2013-02-18
Citation: 292 Ga. 557, 738 S.E.2d 584, 2013 Fulton County D. Rep. 299, 2013 WL 593494, 2013 Ga. LEXIS 145
Snippet: OCGA § 17-3-2.2,1 must respectfully dissent from Division 2 of the majority opinion. OCGA § 17-3-2.2 provides:
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2011-11-29
Citation: 719 S.E.2d 482, 290 Ga. 198, 2011 Fulton County D. Rep. 3859, 2011 Ga. LEXIS 944
Snippet: such motions on the basis urged. Under OCGA § 17-3-2(2),[4] the applicable statute of limitation is tolled
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2004-11-08
Citation: 604 S.E.2d 789, 278 Ga. 598, 2004 Fulton County D. Rep. 3579, 2004 Ga. LEXIS 960
Snippet: few cases that interpret the meaning of OCGA § 17-3-2(2), which states that the statute of limitations
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2002-01-14
Citation: 558 S.E.2d 717, 274 Ga. 675, 2002 Fulton County D. Rep. 170, 2002 Ga. LEXIS 6
Snippet: statute of limitations was tolled under OCGA § 17-3-2(2). 4. Finn contends that the trial court's instruction
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1991-11-15
Citation: 410 S.E.2d 290, 261 Ga. 726, 1991 Ga. LEXIS 1009
Snippet: unknown or the crime is unknown. . . .” OCGA § 17-3-2 (2). One of the objectives of criminal law is punishment;
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1990-03-13
Citation: 389 S.E.2d 240, 260 Ga. 21
Snippet: limitation was tolled, under the exception of OCGA § 17-3-2 (2), in a case of sexual crimes against a child of