O.C.G.A.
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.
(a) As used in this Code section, the term: (1) “Custodian” means a warden, sheriff, jailer, deputy sheriff, police officer, or any other law enforcement officer having actual custody of an inmate. (2) “Inmate” means any person who is lawfully incarcerated in a penal institution. (3) “Penal institution” means any place of confinement for persons accused of or convicted of violating a law of this state or an ordinance of a political subdivision of this state. (b) It shall be unlawful for a custodian of an inmate of a penal institution to use such inmate or allow such inmate to be used for any purpose resulting in private gain to any individual. (c) Any person who violates subsection (b) of this Code section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. (d) This Code section shall not apply to: (1) Work on private property because of natural disasters; (1.1) Work on private property as a form of victim compensation in accordance with Chapter 15A of Title 17; (2) Work or other programs or releases which have the prior approval of the board or commissioner of corrections; (3) Community service work programs; (4) Work-release programs; or (5) Work programs authorized by Article 6 of Chapter 5 of this title.
History
Code 1981, § 42-1-4, enacted by Ga. L. 1985, p. 1483, § 1; Ga. L. 1991, p. 94, § 42; Ga. L. 2003, p. 252, § 2; Ga. L. 2005, p. 1222, § 3/HB 58.
Annotations
Code Commission notes. Both Ga. L. 1985, p. 1259 and Ga. L. 1985, p. 1483 enacted a Code Section
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · leading case:
Smith v. Deering, 880 F. Supp. 816 (S.D. Ga. 1994).
Smith v. Deering, 880 F. Supp. 816 (S.D. Ga. 1994).
· cites it 8× “In the search warrant affidavit, Sweat stated that Smith’s alleged use of inmate labor violated two Georgia statutes: O.C.G.A. § 42-1-5 and O.C.G.A. § 42-5-37(a).”
State v. Yohman, 823 S.E.2d 57 (Ga. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “" OCGA § 42-1-5 (a) (3). Yohman's argument that OCGA § 17-10-7 (c) would be rendered "mere surplusage" by our reading of OCGA § 17-10-7 (a) is unavailing.”
Paul v. State, 707 S.E.2d 171 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 4× “7 Even though the trial court had already decided the issue, the court, in fact, charged the jury on the meaning of “penal institution” as that term is defined under OCGA § 42-1-5 (a) (3). See n. 10, infra. 8 Moreover, the trial court erred in overruling Paul’s objection to…”
Devin Tyler Davis v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 2× “” OCGA § 42-1-5(a)(3), cited by Davis in his appellate brief, similarly defines a “penal institution” as “any place of confinement for persons accused of or convicted of violating a law of this state or an ordinance of a political subdivision of this state.”
— 42-1-5(a)(3) — 1 case
Devin Tyler Davis v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2025).
“” OCGA § 42-1-5(a)(3), cited by Davis in his appellate brief, similarly defines a “penal institution” as “any place of confinement for persons accused of or convicted of violating a law of this state or an ordinance of a political subdivision of this state.”
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.