O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 40-4-21 (2019)

Removal or falsification of identification number

✓ 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) A person who willfully removes, except in conformance with Code Section 40-3-35, or falsifies an identification number of a vehicle or an engine for a vehicle is guilty of a misdemeanor. (b) A person who, willfully and with intent to misrepresent the identity of a vehicle or engine, removes or falsifies an identification number of the vehicle or engine with intent to convert or defraud is guilty of a felony. A person convicted of a felony under this subsection shall be punished by a fine of not less than $500.00 nor more than $5,000.00, or by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than five years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

MOTOR VEHICLES & TRAFFIC

History

Ga. L. 1961, p. 68, § 34; Ga. L. 1984, p. 22, § 40.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Merger of counts. - As to any one vehicle, separate counts charging possession with knowledge that an identification number has been “removed and falsified” and possession with knowledge that an identification number has been “falsified” are merged, and it is error to sentence a defendant to consecutive sentences based on a theory that these counts refer to separate transactions. Gary v. State, 122 Ga. App. 151, 176 S.E.2d 478, 1970 Ga. App. LEXIS 810 (1970). Verdicts not mutually exclusive. - Although the defendant characterized the jury’s verdicts finding the defendant guilty of operating a chop shop and of

falsifying a vehicle identification number as mutually exclusive, the two guilty verdicts returned by the jury could be logically reconciled as a finding that a person wilfully removed or falsified the identification number of a vehicle does not logically exclude a finding that the person owned, operated, or conducted a premise in which the person knowingly altered a vehicle identification number with the intent of misrepresenting the vehicle’s identity, and the defendant’s challenge was actually predicated upon the inconsistent verdict rule, which had been abolished in Georgia. Wilmott v. State, 326 Ga. App. 1, 755 S.E.2d 818, 2014 Ga. App. LEXIS 102 (2014).

RESEARCH REFERENCES U.L.A. Uniform Motor Vehicle Certificate of Title and Anti-Theft Act (U.L.A.) § 37. ALR. Civil rights and liabilities as affected by failure to comply with statute upon sale of motor vehicle, 37 A.L.R. 1465; 52 A.L.R.

701; 63 A.L.R. 688; 94 A.L.R. 948; 58 A.L.R.2d 1351. Criminal liability, under state law, concerning illegal removal or alteration of vehicle identification number, including sale or possession of altered motor vehicles or parts, 107 A.L.R.5th 567.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2014–2014 · leading case: Wilmott v. State, 755 S.E.2d 818 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014).
Wilmott v. State, 755 S.E.2d 818 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 12× “A jury found Michael Wilmott guilty of the offenses of owning, operating or conducting a chop shop in violation of OCGA § 16-8-83 and removing or falsifying a vehicle identification number in violation of OCGA § 40-4-21, and he was convicted of these offenses.”
Michael Wilmott v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 10× “A jury found Michael Wilmott guilty of the offenses of owning, operating or conducting a chop shop in violation of OCGA § 16-8-83 and removing or falsifying a vehicle identification number in violation of OCGA § 40-4-21, and he was convicted of these offenses.”
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.