O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A. § 27-1-34 (2019)
Defenses not available in prosecutions for violations
✓ 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
In any prosecution for the violation of any of the provisions of the wildlife laws, it shall not be a defense that the person taking, possessing, selling, transporting, or storing wildlife was mistaken as to the species, sex, age, size, or any other fact regarding such wildlife or that the person lacked criminal intent, it being one of the purposes of the wildlife laws to penalize recklessness resulting in the violation of the wildlife laws.
History
(Ga. L. 1955, p. 483, § 52; Code 1933, § 45-204, enacted by Ga. L. 1977, p. 396, § 1.)
Annotations
RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 35A Am. Jur. 2d, Fish, Game, and Wildlife Conservation, § 59 et seq.
C.J.S. - 36A C.J.S., Fish, § 44. 38 C.J.S., Game; Conservation and Preservation of Wildlife, § 81 et seq.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1
case, 1984–1984 · leading case: Price v. State, 319 S.E.2d 849 (Ga. 1984).
Price v. State, 319 S.E.2d 849 (Ga. 1984). “…as a "public welfare offense," and the court should not read a knowledge or intent requirement into the statute. See OCGA § 27-1-34.”
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.