Materially different oath cannot be basis for perjury prosecution.

- When it is affirmatively shown that the oath administered to a witness was materially different in both form and substance than the prescribed statutory oath, the administered oath was not a lawful one and cannot properly be the basis for a perjury prosecution. Kirkland v. State, 140 Ga. App. 197, 230 S.E.2d 347 (1976).

Oath not materially different.

- Oath given to arresting officer indicating the defendant's name, the crimes charged, and the fact that the testimony was being given in a trial and not a grand jury proceeding was not materially different in both form and substance from the prescribed statutory oath and was proper. Elam v. State, 211 Ga. App. 739, 440 S.E.2d 511 (1994).

Oath materially different but not harmful.

- Trial court erred in permitting an undercover agent to testify after being administered an oath that did not substantially comply with O.C.G.A. § 17-8-52; but the error was not sufficiently harmful to warrant reversal. Lee v. State, 223 Ga. App. 438, 477 S.E.2d 872 (1996).

Oath administered is presumed to be lawful.

- When there is evidence that an oath was administered to a witness, it will be presumed in the absence of proof to the contrary that the lawful or statutory oath was administered. Kirkland v. State, 140 Ga. App. 197, 230 S.E.2d 347 (1976).

Failure to make timely objection to oath.

- When the defendant fails to make a timely objection to the state's failure to administer the oath to witnesses in the precise terms set forth in this section, waiting instead until the state rests the state's case, the defendant waives the objection and cannot complain on appeal. Joseph v. State, 149 Ga. App. 296, 254 S.E.2d 383 (1979); Montes v. State, 262 Ga. 473, 421 S.E.2d 710 (1992).

Omission of oath not ground for new trial.

- See Smith v. State, 81 Ga. 479, 8 S.E. 187 (1888); Rhodes v. State, 122 Ga. 568, 50 S.E. 361 (1905).

Cited in Hilson v. State, 204 Ga. App. 200, 418 S.E.2d 784 (1992).