Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 24-6-616 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 24-6-616 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 24-6-616

TITLE 24 EVIDENCE

Section 6. Witnesses, 24-6-601 through 24-6-658.

ARTICLE 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS

24-6-616. Presence in courtroom of victim of criminal offense.

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.

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

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 courtroom 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) (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) (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) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-9-61.1)

Cited in Davis v. State, 299 Ga. 180, 787 S.E.2d 221 (2016).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

- Validity, construction, and application of state constitutional or statutory victims' bill of rights, 91 A.L.R.5th 343.

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 24-6-616

Total Results: 4  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Davis v. State, 299 Ga. 180 (Ga. 2016).

Cited 126 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 6, 2016 | 787 S.E.2d 221

...than five months after Georgia’s new Evidence Code took effect. In our new evidence scheme, the rule relating to sequestration (“exclusion”) of witnesses is found in OCGA § 24-6-615, which says: 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....
...The text of § 24-6-615 differs significantly from the text of the sequestration provision of the old Evidence Code,4 and instead tracks in pertinent part the language of Federal Rule of Evidence 615 as that rule read in 2011. As we have 3 OGGA § 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 jurisdic...
Copy

Thompson v. State, 843 S.E.2d 794 (Ga. 2020).

Cited 15 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 1, 2020 | 308 Ga. 854

...evidence and the exclusion of these witnesses from sequestration. A trial court’s decision to grant an exception to the rule of sequestration is within the court’s discretion. See Moore v. State, 297 Ga. 773, 774 (2) (778 SE2d 210) (2015). 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.” OCGA § 24-6-616’s exception to the rule of sequestration is subject to OCGA § 17-17-9, which provides in pertinent part: A victim or member of the immediate family of a victim shall not be excluded from ....
Copy

Anderson v. State, 307 Ga. 79 (Ga. 2019).

Cited 9 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 21, 2019

Copy

Moore v. State, 297 Ga. 773 (Ga. 2015).

Cited 3 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 5, 2015 | 778 S.E.2d 210

...Moore contends that the trial court erred by allowing the primary investigator in the case, GBI Agent Walsingham, to sit at the prosecution table during the trial in violation of the rule of sequestration. Pursuant to OCGA § 2 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....