O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 42-5-37 (2019)

Employees in control of inmates prohibited from receiving profit from inmate labor; penalties

✓ 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) No warden, superintendent, deputy, inspector, physician, or any officer or other employee who has charge, control, or direction of inmates shall be interested in any manner whatever in the work or profit of the labor of any inmate; nor shall any such personnel receive any pay, gift, gratuity, or favor of a valuable character from any person interested, either directly or indirectly, in such labor. (b) Any person violating subsection (a) of this Code section shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of not less than two years and not more than five years. The offense may be reduced to a misdemeanor by recommendation of the jury trying the case, if the court concurs in the jury’s recommendation. In addition, a person who violates subsection (a) of this Code section shall be summarily discharged from the service of the state by the department. (c) This Code section shall not prohibit a part-time professional employee from the regular practice of his profession.

History

Ga. L. 1908, p. 1119, § 11; Penal Code

1910, § 1196; Code 1933, § 77-9906; Ga. L. 1984, p. 639, § 3.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Constitutionality of subsection (a). - While it is commonly understood that a warden will have a permissible interest in the performance of labor by inmates under the waarden’s control as that labor benefits the county or state, the clear meaning of O.C.G.A. § 42-5-37 is that a warden may not receive a personal interest or benefit from the labor of inmates under the warden’s control. Therefore, subsection (a) is not void for vagueness. Cleveland v. State, 260 Ga. 770, 399 S.E.2d 472, 1991 Ga. LEXIS 15 (1991). Warden’s use of inmate labor for personal benefit. - Although, as warden, the defendant was permitted to live rent-free in a house located on county

property, the county did not benefit from routine use of inmates to perform personal housekeeping chores at the warden’s home, as well as to walk the warden’s dogs and clean the dog pens, baby-sit the warden’s children, and wash the warden’s personal vehicles. Inmates who refused to perform these chores were punished. The extensive evidence that the warden directed inmates to perform labor for the warden’s personal benefit supports the warden’s convictions for violating subsection (a) of O.C.G.A. § 42-5-37 beyond a reasonable doubt. Cleveland v. State, 260 Ga. 770, 399 S.E.2d 472, 1991 Ga. LEXIS 15 (1991).

STATE/COUNTY CORRECTIONAL INST.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1991–1994 · leading case: Smith v. Deering, 880 F. Supp. 816 (S.D. Ga. 1994).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Smith v. Deering, 880 F. Supp. 816 (S.D. Ga. 1994). · cites it 15× “” Under O.C.G.A. § 42-5-37, it is a felony for any “warden, superintendent, deputy, inspector, physician, or any officer or other employee who has charge, control, or direction of inmates” to be “interested in any matter whatever in the work or profit of the labor of any inmate.”

Cleveland v. State, 399 S.E.2d 472 (Ga. 1991). · cites it 8× “Donnie Cleveland, the former warden of Thomas County Correctional Institute (TCCI), was convicted of three counts of using inmate labor in violation of OCGA § 42-5-37 (a), two counts of theft by taking, and one count of violating his oath of public office.”

— 42-5-37(a) — 1 case

Smith v. Deering, 880 F. Supp. 816 (S.D. Ga. 1994). “” Under O.C.G.A. § 42-5-37, it is a felony for any “warden, superintendent, deputy, inspector, physician, or any officer or other employee who has charge, control, or direction of inmates” to be “interested in any matter whatever in the work or profit of the labor of any inmate.”

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.