Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 17-7-53 | Car Wreck Lawyer

TITLE 17 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Section 7. Pretrial Proceedings, 17-7-1 through 17-7-211.

ARTICLE 3 INDICTMENTS

17-7-53. Operation of two returns of "no bill" on charge as bar to future prosecution for same charge.

Two returns of "no bill" by grand juries on the same charge or allegation shall be a bar to any future prosecution of a person for the same offense under the same or another name; provided, however, that, if the returns have been procured by the fraudulent conduct of the person charged or there is newly discovered evidence, upon proof, the judge may allow a third bill to be presented, found, and prosecuted.

(Laws 1850, Cobb's 1851 Digest, p. 864; Code 1863, § 4591; Code 1868, § 4612; Code 1873, § 4708; Code 1882, § 4708; Penal Code 1895, § 930; Penal Code 1910, § 955; Code 1933, § 27-702.)

Cross references.

- Multiple jeopardy, U.S. Const., amend. 5 and Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Para. XVIII.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Intent.

- This section was passed to protect the people of this state from vexatious prosecution in cases where grand juries may hereafter refuse to find the true bills. Lowry v. Thompson, 53 Ga. App. 71, 184 S.E. 891 (1936).

Effect on rights at common law.

- This section has not changed the common law with reference to the fact that the defendant was entitled to be discharged without further answer after a return of the first "no bill." Lowry v. Thompson, 53 Ga. App. 71, 184 S.E. 891 (1936).

Applicability to accusations in city courts.

- Former Code 1933, §§ 27-701.1, 27-703, and 27-704 (see O.C.G.A. §§ 17-7-51,17-7-54, and17-7-70) have no applicability to accusations in city courts when, under special legislation establishing the various city courts, it was provided that the accusation must be founded upon the affidavit of the prosecutor, and the affidavit was made a substitute for the formal finding of the grand jury as to the misdemeanors triable in the city courts in question. The affidavit which was the basis for the issuance of a warrant to arrest is not to be confused with the affidavit which formed the basis of the accusation in many of the city courts. Brown v. State, 82 Ga. App. 673, 62 S.E.2d 732 (1950).

Effect of first "no bill."

- After the return of a first "no bill", the party against whom the indictment is sought is discharged without further answer, but a fresh bill may afterwards be preferred to a subsequent grand jury. Lowry v. Thompson, 53 Ga. App. 71, 184 S.E. 891 (1936).

After the return of a first "no bill", the party against whom the indictment is sought is discharged without further answer. Curcio v. Sanders, 109 Ga. App. 548, 136 S.E.2d 406 (1964).

Return of a first "no bill" was no bar to the prosecution of the accused under a "true bill" subsequently returned since under this section the return of two "no bills" by grand juries on the same charge or accusation was necessary to constitute a bar to future prosecution for the same offense. Curcio v. Sanders, 109 Ga. App. 548, 136 S.E.2d 406 (1964).

When one has been arrested on a warrant, and has executed an appearance bond with a surety thereon, and a "no bill" is returned by the grand jury as to the charge against the accused, the accused is by operation of law discharged upon the return of the first "no bill", and is released from recognizance along with the surety thereon, subject to being rearrested and new recognizance required upon the initiation of a new bill of indictment. Curcio v. Sanders, 109 Ga. App. 548, 136 S.E.2d 406 (1964).

True bill may not be recalled at same term.

- After a grand jury has returned into court a true bill of indictment, and the indictment has been entered on the minutes of the superior court by the court's clerk, the court obtains jurisdiction of the case, and the grand jury is without authority, at the same term of the court, to recall the true bill, erase the entry of "true bill", and make an entry of "no bill" on the indictment. Gibson v. State, 162 Ga. 504, 134 S.E. 326, aff'd, 162 Ga. 504, 134 S.E. 326 (1926).

No right to entry of discharge in minutes of court.

- Person discharged is not entitled to an order upon the minutes of the superior court discharging the person from the offense or crime therein contained. Christmas v. State, 53 Ga. 81 (1874).

Proof of return of "no bill".

- Entry of "no bill" on the minutes or the original "no bill" is the highest evidence of the action of the grand jury. When it is accounted for, individual grand jurors may testify to the facts. Elliott v. State, 1 Ga. App. 113, 57 S.E. 972 (1907).

Mere statement by the prisoner's attorney to the jailer that the prisoner should be discharged because the grand jury had, upon investigation of the charge made against the prisoner, returned the first "no bill," is not sufficient proof of that return, when the jailer wants further proof and demands the proof, nor would it be such notice as would be conclusive on the sheriff, or jailer, or such notice as the jailer must then act on immediately at the jailer's peril. Even if it charged the jailer with the duty of making further inquiry, the jailer would be entitled to a reasonable time for this purpose before taking further action. Lowry v. Thompson, 53 Ga. 71, 184 S.E. 891 (1936).

Prima facie proof that prosecution has terminated.

- Allegation or proof of a return of "no bill" by even one grand jury on an indictment is deemed a sufficient prima facie showing that a prosecution has terminated. Sykes v. South Side Atlanta Bank, 53 Ga. App. 450, 186 S.E. 464 (1936).

Pleading and use in evidence of defense.

- Defense granted by this section may be pled in bar or given in evidence under the general issue. Elliott v. State, 1 Ga. App. 113, 57 S.E. 972 (1907).

Cited in Barlow v. State, 127 Ga. 58, 56 S.E. 131 (1906); State v. Griffin, 268 Ga. 540, 491 S.E.2d 340 (1997).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

- Unlawful arrest as bar to prosecution under subsequent indictment or information, 56 A.L.R. 260.

Power of grand jury to withdraw or alter indictment, or return of "not a true bill", 82 A.L.R. 1057.

Right of prosecution to review of decision quashing or dismissing indictment or information, or sustaining demurrer thereto, 92 A.L.R. 1137.

Cases Citing Georgia Code 17-7-53 From Courtlistener.com

Total Results: 14

MOORE v. WHITE, WARDEN

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2024-10-22

Snippet: the re-indictment is prohibited under OCGA § 17-7-53.1, which disallows prosecution after two indictments

Walker v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2021-10-19

Snippet: offense or offenses had been quashed, see OCGA § 17-7-53.1. In addition, if a trial court has the authority

Bighams v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2014-11-17

Citation: 296 Ga. 267, 765 S.E.2d 917

Snippet: case, allowing the State to re-indict. See OCGA § 17-7-53.1 (barring prosecution after two indictments

State v. Dempsey

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2012-03-23

Citation: 290 Ga. 763, 727 S.E.2d 670, 2012 Fulton County D. Rep. 1101, 2012 Ga. LEXIS 338

Snippet: be subject to reindictment. Yet, under OCGA § 17-7-53.1,3 he is not subject to reindictment if both indictments

Layman v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2008-06-30

Citation: 663 S.E.2d 169, 284 Ga. 83, 2008 Fulton County D. Rep. 2195, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 528

Snippet: to prosecute Layman for his crimes under OCGA § 17-7-53.1, the State requested entry of an order of nolle

Griffin v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2007-06-25

Citation: 647 S.E.2d 36, 282 Ga. 215, 2007 Fulton County D. Rep. 1972, 2007 Ga. LEXIS 482

Snippet: Griffin filed a plea in bar contending that OCGA § 17-7-53.1 barred his prosecution in Thomas County. The

Langlands v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2007-06-04

Citation: 646 S.E.2d 253, 282 Ga. 103, 2007 Fulton County D. Rep. 1723, 2007 WL 1582195, 2007 Ga. LEXIS 420

Snippet: prosecution for that crime would be barred. OCGA § 17-7-53.1; [cit.]" Langlands II, supra at 801(3), 633 S

Langlands v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2006-07-14

Citation: 633 S.E.2d 537, 280 Ga. 799, 2006 Fulton County D. Rep. 2369, 2006 Ga. LEXIS 490

Snippet: prosecution for that crime would be barred. OCGA § 17-7-53.1; State v. Dorsey, 251 Ga.App. 788, 555 S.E.2d

Layman v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2006-05-18

Citation: 631 S.E.2d 107, 280 Ga. 794, 2006 Fulton County D. Rep. 1563, 2006 Ga. LEXIS 343

Snippet: demurred to the new indictments. Under OCGA § 17-7-53.1, the State would be barred from further attempts

State v. Lejeune

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2003-02-10

Citation: 576 S.E.2d 888, 276 Ga. 179

Snippet: of indictment to avoid the operation of OCGA § 17-7-53.1, which bars the State from continuing to prosecute

State v. Griffin

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1997-10-06

Citation: 491 S.E.2d 340, 268 Ga. 540, 97 Fulton County D. Rep. 3701, 1997 Ga. LEXIS 628

Snippet: for murder. Griffin's plea was based on OCGA § 17-7-53.1 and the fact that a murder indictment against

Gourley v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1997-06-30

Citation: 486 S.E.2d 342, 268 Ga. 235, 97 Fulton County D. Rep. 2434, 1997 Ga. LEXIS 347

Snippet: Gourley filed a plea of former jeopardy under OCGA § 17-7-53.1 claiming prosecution on the third indictment

Isaacs v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1989-11-30

Citation: 386 S.E.2d 316, 259 Ga. 717, 1989 Ga. LEXIS 503

Snippet: SE2d 567) (1988), concerning the effect of OCGA § 17-7-53.1. 5. OCGA § 15-12-164 is not unconstitutional

Isaacs v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1988-02-05

Citation: 364 S.E.2d 567, 257 Ga. 798, 1988 Ga. LEXIS 48

Snippet: abatement and motion for acquittal pursuant to OCGA § 17-7-53.1. The state argues that this appeal should be