O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 31-21-44 (2019)

Wanton or malicious removal of dead body from grave or disturbance of contents of grave; receipt, retention, disposal, or possession of unlawfully removed dead body or bodily part

✓ 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) It is unlawful for any person wantonly or maliciously to:

(1) Remove the dead body of a human being from any grave or other place of interment or from any vault, tomb, or sepulcher; or (2) Otherwise disturb the contents of any grave or other place of interment or any vault, tomb, or sepulcher. (b) It is unlawful for any person to receive, retain, dispose of, or possess the dead body or any bodily part of a human being knowing it to have been removed unlawfully from any grave or other place of interment or any vault, tomb, or sepulcher. This subsection shall not apply to any person having duties imposed upon that person relating to the possession or disposition of dead bodies while in the performance of said duties, which persons shall include law enforcement personnel, coroners and medical examiners, operators of funeral establishments, cemetery operators, and medical and medical laboratory personnel. (c) Any person who violates any provision of this Code section shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than five years, or by both such imprisonment and fine.

History

Code 1933, § 88-2710.1, enacted by Ga. L. 1980, p. 1434, § 1; Ga. L. 1989, p. 360, § 1.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS No basis for private right of action. - Individual was not permitted pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-15-2(d) to file a pro se civil complaint related to the final disposition of a family member’s remains because no applicable legal authority recognized any private right of action based on alleged violations of O.C.G.A. § 31-21-44, a criminal statute relating to the disposition of human remains. Verdi v. Wilkinson County, 288 Ga. App. 856, 655 S.E.2d 642 (2007), cert. denied, No. S08C0929, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 397 (Ga. 2008).

In a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit, a Native American plaintiff failed to state a claim against a city and a private developer for disturbing graves because O.C.G.A. § 31-21-44 criminalized the destruction of graves but did not create a private cause of action. Serpentfoot v. Rome City Comm’n, No. 08-15628, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 7712 (11th Cir. Apr. 7, 2009) (Unpublished).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 22A Am. Jur. 2d, Dead Bodies, § 78. C.J.S. - 25A C.J.S., Dead Bodies, §§ 30 et seq., 67 et seq.

ALR. - Liability for desecration of graves and tombstones, 77 A.L.R.4th 108.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 2007–2010 · leading case: Anthony v. Am. Gen. Fin. Servs., Inc., 697 S.E.2d 166 (Ga. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Anthony v. Am. Gen. Fin. Servs., Inc., 697 S.E.2d 166 (Ga. 2010). · cites it 8× “2d 642 ; OCGA § 31-21-44. The Court of Appeals held "[t]here is no indication that the legislature intended to impose civil liability in addition to the criminal sanctions set forth in OCGA § 31-21-44 because ` nothing in the provisions of the statute creates a private cause of…”

Verdi v. Wilkinson Cnty., 655 S.E.2d 642 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 12× “” The pleading does not designate any parties defendant and does not clearly ask for any specific relief, although it invokes OCGA § 31-21-44, which makes it a felony to maliciously remove a dead body from a grave, to disturb the contents of a grave, or to possess human remains…”

Ms. Serpentfoot v. Rome City Comm'n, 322 F. App'x 801 (11th Cir. 2009). · cites it 3× “In her complaint, she asserted that the defendants were involved in a development project (the “West Third Street Development”) which would destroy a home site and graves belonging to her Cherokee ancestors, in violation of a Georgia statute, *803 O.C.G.A. § 31-21-44 (2008),…”

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.