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

O.C.G.A. § 17-8-52 (2019)

Oath to be administered to witnesses

✓ 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

(a) The following oath shall be administered to witnesses in criminal cases: ‘‘Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the evidence you shall give to the court and jury in the matter now pending before the court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So help you God.’’

(b) Any oath given that substantially complies with the language in this Code section shall subject the witness to the provisions of Code Section 16-10-70.

History

Laws 1833, Cobb’s 1851 Digest, p. 836; Code 1863, § 4537; Code 1868, § 4557; Code 1873, § 4651; Code 1882, § 4651; Penal Code 1895, § 980;

Penal Code 1910, § 1006; Code 1933, § 38-1702; Ga. L. 1997, p. 1499, § 2.

Annotations

Cross references. - Perjury and related offenses, § 16-10-70 et seq.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS District attorney may administer the oath under court direction. Thomas v. State, 67 Ga. 460 (1881). 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).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1986–2020 · leading case: Pope v. State, 345 S.E.2d 831 (Ga. 1986).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Pope v. State, 345 S.E.2d 831 (Ga. 1986). · cites it 4× “The oath was properly administered in accordance with OCGA § 17-8-52. 15. The court did not err by failing to charge on automatism, absent a written request for such a charge.”
Montes v. State, 421 S.E.2d 710 (Ga. 1992). · cites it 2× “Appellant contends he is entitled to a new trial on the ground that the testimony of a material witness was unsworn because the oath given the witness was not a verbatim recitation of the statutory oath found in OCGA § 17-8-52: “The evidence you shall give to the court and jury…”
State v. Williams, 351 S.E.2d 727 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 4× “That case relied upon Ashburn by holding that the oath to be given a witness conform to the statutory form. In the oath given to Williams, two elements were absent: it did not state whether the state was seeking a bill of indictment or presentment, and it did not "state the…”
Jones v. State, 440 S.E.2d 161 (Ga. 1994). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 17-8-52. 9. (a) The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Jones’ request that witnesses be sequestered for voir dire.”
Hilson v. State, 418 S.E.2d 784 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “Appellant argues that notwithstanding the provisions of OCGA § 24-9-5 (b), a child witness must still be administered an oath pursuant to OCGA § 24-9-60, which provides: “The sanction of an oath or affirmation equivalent thereto shall be necessary to the reception of any oral…”
Lee v. State, 477 S.E.2d 872 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 4× “Over objection, the State introduced certified copies of Lee’s three prior convictions for the sale of cocaine and Lee’s two prior convictions for possession of cocaine.”
Elam v. State, 440 S.E.2d 511 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “Appellant also contends the trial court erred in allowing the arresting officer to testify without requiring him to take the exact oath required to be administered to all witnesses in criminal cases under OCGA § 17-8-52. The record reflects that defense counsel objected to the…”
Melvin Andrew Sutton v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 17-8-52 sets forth the oath to be administered to witnesses in criminal proceedings.”
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.