Permission of landowner.

- One must have permission of landowner as condition precedent to hunting any game or animals. Blassingame v. State, 11 Ga. App. 809, 76 S.E. 392 (1912).

Conviction for hunting without permission.

- In order to convict person of hunting on land of another without permission, it is incumbent upon the state to prove that permission to hunt was not obtained from the landowner, lessee, or lessee of the game rights, and where the state proved only that the defendant did not obtain permission from one of the owners, and there was no showing that the owner was the only person empowered to give permission to hunt on the land, the evidence was insufficient for a rational jury to reasonably find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Townsend v. State, 173 Ga. App. 389, 326 S.E.2d 569 (1985).

Protected status of game being hunted has no effect.

- Former Ga. L. 1911, p. 137, § 7 (see now O.C.G.A. § 27-3-1) expressly protected lands of another from trespassing by hunters regardless of whether the game being hunted was specifically protected by that section. Blassingame v. State, 11 Ga. App. 809, 76 S.E. 392 (1912).

The state must negate the disjunction that the landowner or the lessee or the lessee of the game rights gave permission to hunt on the land, which requires a showing that the landowner did not give permission, the lessee (if extant) did not give permission, and the lessee of the game rights (if extant) did not give permission. Burkhalter v. State, 256 Ga. 236, 347 S.E.2d 588 (1986).

Evidence sufficient to sustain conviction.

- See Blackwelder v. State, 256 Ga. 283, 347 S.E.2d 600 (1986).

Evidence insufficient to support conviction.

- Where the lessee of the game rights had not given the defendants permission to hunt on the property, there was no evidence that another lessee existed and the only other evidence was one defendant's testimony that they had not intended to hunt on private property because they did not have the appropriate hunting license to hunt on such property, this evidence was insufficient to support a conviction under O.C.G.A. § 27-3-1. Burkhalter v. State, 256 Ga. 236, 347 S.E.2d 588 (1986).

Incorrect date on summons.

- Because the date of the alleged offense is not generally material, except for statute of limitations purposes, and failure to rely on a specific date is not harmful unless the defendant is surprised and prejudiced in the preparation of a defense, defendant was not harmed by the appearance of an incorrect date on the summons. Blackwelder v. State, 256 Ga. 283, 347 S.E.2d 600 (1986).

Fingerprinting.

- Hunting on the land of another without permission is no longer designated as an offense for which those charged with a violation must be fingerprinted, except to the extent mandated by statute. 1987 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 87-21.

The Georgia Crime Information Center is not authorized to collect and file fingerprints of persons charged with a violation of O.C.G.A. § 27-3-1(c). 2001 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 2001-11.

Intrusions by dogs.

- O.C.G.A. § 27-3-1 does not apply to persons lawfully engaged in hunting whose dogs enter the lands of another without permission. 1997 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U97-16.

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 35A Am. Jur. 2d, Fish, Game, and Wildlife Conservation, § 27.

C.J.S.

- 38 C.J.S., Game; Conservation and Preservation of Wildlife, § 4.