O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 24-6-616 (2019)

Presence in courtroom of victim of criminal offense

✓ 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

Subject to the provisions of Code Section 17-17-9, the victim of a criminal offense shall be entitled to be present in any court exercising jurisdiction over such offense.

History

Code 1981, § 24-6-616, enacted by Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 2/HB 24.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Editor’s notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former O.C.G.A. § 24-9-61.1 are included in the annotations for this Code section. Discretion of court. - In a prosecution for aggravated assault, the trial court did not abuse the court’s discretion in allowing a victim, who was comatose and in a wheelchair, to remain in the court-

room since the victim’s injuries as a result of the shooting were relevant to the accusation. Lewis v. State, 215 Ga. App. 161, 450 S.E.2d 448, 1994 Ga. App. LEXIS 1157 (1994) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-9-61.1). Trial court properly allowed the victim in defendant’s child molestation trial to remain in court after the defense moved for sequestration because former O.C.G.A.

§ 24-9-61.1 provided that the victim of a criminal offense could be entitled to be present in any court exercising jurisdiction over such offense, and it was within the sole discretion of the trial judge to determine when to allow such victim to be present in such court, and as the prosecutor had requested that the victim remain present to assist in the case, the trial court did not abuse the court’s discretion. Flowers v. State, 255 Ga. App. 660, 566 S.E.2d 339, 2002 Ga. App. LEXIS 672 (2002) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-9-61.1). Rule of sequestration was not violated. - Procedure of the trial judge in

allowing the victim to remain in the courtroom while a detective and polygraph examiner testified, and then letting the victim give testimony was fully within the court’s discretion and did not constitute reversible error. Shepherd v. State, 245 Ga. App. 386, 537 S.E.2d 777, 2000 Ga. App. LEXIS 953 (2000) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-9-61.1).

RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. Validity, construction, and application

of state constitutional or statutory victims’ bill of rights, 91 A.L.R.5th 343.

ARTICLE 2 CREDIBILITY Law reviews. For article on the 2011 enactment of

this article, see 28 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 1 (2011).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2015–2021 · leading case: Davis v. State, 787 S.E.2d 221 (Ga. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Davis v. State, 787 S.E.2d 221 (Ga. 2016). · cites it 4× “3 OCGA § 24-6-616 says, “Subject to the provisions of Code Section 17-17-9 [elaborating on a crime victim’s right to be present during court proceedings], the victim of a criminal offense shall be entitled to be present in any court exercising jurisdiction over such offense.”

Thompson v. State, 843 S.E.2d 794 (Ga. 2020). · cites it 4× “OCGA § 24-6-616 carves out an exception to the general rule of sequestration and provides that “the victim of a criminal offense shall be entitled to be present in any court exercising jurisdiction over such offense.”

Moore v. State, 778 S.E.2d 210 (Ga. 2015). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to OCGA § 24-6-615: Except as otherwise provided in Code Section 24-6-616, at the request of a party the court shall order witnesses excluded so that each witness cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses, and it may make the order on its own motion.”

Tony Louis Miller, Jr v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 6× “” In addition, OCGA § 24-6-616 precludes the trial court from excluding the victim of a criminal offense.”

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.