O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 42-8-40 (2019)

Confidentiality of reports, files, records, and other information related to supervision; exemption from subpoena; declassification

✓ 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

All reports, files, records, and information of whatever kind relative to the supervision of probationers and parolees are declared to be confidential and shall be available only to the probation system officials, the judge handling a particular case, the Board of Community Supervision, DCS, the Department of Corrections, the Department of Juvenile Justice, and the State Board of Pardons and Paroles, as appropriate. Such reports, files, records, and information shall not be subject to process of subpoena; provided, however, that the commissioner of community supervision may by written order declassify any such records.

History

Ga. L. 1956, p. 27, § 19; Ga. L. 1958, p. 15, § 11; Ga. L. 2003, p. 421, § 1; Ga. L. 2011, p. 620, § 1/SB 214; Ga. L. 2015, p. 422, § 4-1/HB 310.

Annotations

Cross references. Inspection of public records generally, § 50-18-70 et seq. Editor’s notes. Ga. L. 2015, p. 422, § 6-1/HB 310, not

codified by the General Assembly, provides that: “This Act shall become effective July 1, 2015, and shall apply to sentences entered on or after such date.”

Law reviews. For article on the 2015 amendment of this Code section, see 32 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 231 (2015).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Applicability to presentence investigation reports. - This section applies to presentence investigation reports. Mills v. State, 244 Ga. 186, 259 S.E.2d 445, 1979 Ga. LEXIS 1171 (1979). Right to verbatim copy of presentence report. - Defendant has no constitutional right to a verbatim copy of the presentence investigation report for use in sentence review process. Hence, this section is not unconstitutional on the ground the statute prohibits a defendant from obtaining access to the report. Mills v. State, 244 Ga. 186, 259 S.E.2d 445, 1979 Ga. LEXIS 1171 (1979). Right to compulsory process. - O.C.G.A. § 42-8-40 unconstitutionally limited a criminal defendant’s constitutional right to compulsory process when the statute was applied to prevent the defendant obtaining a copy of the results of a drug test in order to put forth a defense in a criminal trial. Dean v. State, 267 Ga. 306, 477 S.E.2d 573. Revealing presentence report to counsel. - If a presentence probation report contains any matter adverse to the defendant and likely to influence the decision to suspend or probate the sentence,

it should be revealed to defense counsel by the trial judge in advance of the presentence hearing to give the accused an opportunity for explanation or rebuttal. Benefield v. State, 140 Ga. App. 727, 232 S.E.2d 89, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 1615 (1976). Refreshing recollection with confidential presentence investigation report. - In a proceeding to terminate the parental rights of a father who had been convicted of molesting his children, the trial court did not err in allowing a probation official to use a confidential presentence investigation report to refresh his recollection about interviews he had with the father. In re S.M.L., 228 Ga. App. 81, 491 S.E.2d 186. Testimony relating to confidential records and petitions barred. - When records and petitions to revoke probation have been declared confidential and not subject to process of subpoena by statute, the trial court in probation revocation hearing does not err in refusing to admit testimony relating to them. Penney v. State, 157 Ga. App. 737, 278 S.E.2d 460, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 1996 (1981).

RESEARCH REFERENCES C.J.S. 24 C.J.S., Criminal Law, §§ 2144-2161. ALR. Right of convicted defendant or prosecu-

tion to receive updated presentence report at sentencing proceedings, 22 A.L.R.5th 660.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1996–2016 · leading case: In re Whittle, 793 S.E.2d 123 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016).
In re Whittle, 793 S.E.2d 123 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “OCGA § 42-8-40 (“All reports, files, records, and information of whatever kind relative to the supervision of probationers and parolees are declared to be confidential and shall be available only to the probation system officials, the judge handling a particular case, the Board…”
Dean v. State, 477 S.E.2d 573 (Ga. 1996). · cites it 12× “In January 1996, as the December 1994 charges against him came on for trial, Dean subpoenaed the probation office’s records of the December 1994 urine test and filed a motion in limine to determine his right to use these records as evidence at trial. The trial court denied…”
Cromartie v. State, 514 S.E.2d 205 (Ga. 1999). · cites it 2× “The trial court did not err in denying Cromartie’s motion to discover the personnel files of the police officers who investigated his case and the presentence investigation reports of his accomplices absent a specific showing of need.”
In the Interest of S. M. L., 491 S.E.2d 186 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “See OCGA § 42-8-40. However, the witness did not testify as to the report’s contents or read from it, but simply used the report to refresh his recollection about interviews he had with the father.”
In Re: Clay Whittle, Sheriff (Ga. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “OCGA § 42-8-40 (“All reports, files, records, and information of whatever kind relative to the supervision of probationers and parolees are declared to be confidential and shall be available only to the probation system officials, the judge handling a particular case, the Board…”
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.