O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 45-11-5 (2019)

Extortion generally

✓ 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) As used in this Code section, the term ‘‘extortion’’ means an unlawful taking by a public officer, under color of his office, from any person of any money or thing of value that is not due to him or more than is due to him. (b) Any public officer who shall by himself, his deputy, his agent, or other person employed by him be guilty of extortion in demanding or receiving other and greater fees than by law are allowed him shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be dismissed from office. (Laws 1833, Cobb’s 1851 Digest, p. 809; Code 1863, §§ 4393, 4394; Code 1868, §§ 4434, 4435; Code 1873, §§ 4507, 4508; Code 1882, §§ 4507, 4508; Penal Code 1895, §§ 298, 299; Penal Code 1910, §§ 302, 303; Code 1933, §§ 89-9909, 89-9910; Ga. L. 1990, p. 8, § 45.)

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Offense of extortion consists of the oppressive misuse of official power by the exaction of money. When an officer thought there was a right to accept a cash bond, the officer was not guilty of extor-

tion because intent to commit the crime is necessary. Holt v. State, 11 Ga. App. 34, 74 S.E. 560 (1912). Cited in White v. State, 56 Ga. 385 (1876); Lancaster v. Hill, 136 Ga. 405, 71

PUBLIC OFFICERS & EMPLOYEES

S.E. 731, 1912C Ann. Cas. 272 (1911); In re Williams, 284 Ga. 96, 663 S.E.2d 181 (2008). RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 31A Am. Jur. 2d, Extortion, Blackmail, and Threats, § 1 et seq. C.J.S. - 35 C.J.S., Extortion, §§ 1 et seq., 20. ALR. - Construction and scope as regards purpose or object for which funds are solicited or received, of statute prohibiting solicitation or acceptance of subscriptions or contributions by public officers or employees, 85 ALR 1146. What constitutes the taking of money or other thing of value under color of office, 70 ALR3d 1153.

Truth as defense to state charge of criminal intimidation, extortion, blackmail, threats, and the like, based upon threats to disclose information about victim, 39 ALR4th 1011. Construction and application of § 2C1.1 of United States Sentencing Guidelines (18 USCS APPX § 2C1.1) pertaining to offenses involving public officials offering, giving, soliciting, or receiving bribes, or extortion under color of official right, 144 ALR Fed. 615.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2008–2026 · leading case: In Re Williams, 663 S.E.2d 181 (Ga. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Williams, 663 S.E.2d 181 (Ga. 2008). · cites it 2× “In his petition, Williams admits that he pled guilty to a single violation of OCGA § 45-11-5 (misdemeanor for a public officer to receive money not due him through the use of his office) and was sentenced under the First Offender Act to one year of probation (which could, under…”
In the Matter of Stephanie Dianne Woodard, 321 Ga. 681 (Ga. 2025). · cites it 4× “4 (a) (3) filed by an assistant district attorney who “participated in a scheme initiated by his boss, the then-District Attorney, to obtain from [the county] money to 10 which the District Attorney was not entitled” and “pled guilty to a single violation of OCGA § 45-11-5…”
In the Matter of Stephanie Dianne Woodard (Ga. 2026). · cites it 2× “96 (2008), in which we imposed a six-month suspension to sanction an Assistant District Attorney who participated in a scheme initiated by the District Attorney to steal county funds and pleaded guilty to a single violation of OCGA § 45-11-5, and In the Matter of Adams, 291 Ga.”
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.