(Code 1933, § 26-301, enacted by Ga. L. 1968, p. 1249, § 1.)
Cross references.- Jurisdiction of state over crimes committed aboard aircraft in flight over state, § 6-2-4.
Homicide generally, § 16-5-1 et seq.
Jurisdiction for crime of sexual extortion, § 16-11-92.
Jurisdiction in cases involving computer pornography and child exploitation, § 16-12-100.2.
Jurisdiction in and over lands acquired by United States for sites for courthouses, forts, and other purposes, § 50-2-23.
Law reviews.- For article, "A Comprehensive Analysis of Georgia RICO," see 9 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 537 (1993).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Circumstantial evidence cannot equivocate on jurisdiction.
- Venue may be proved by circumstantial evidence; but circumstances which render it possible that an alleged crime was committed within the jurisdiction of the court are insufficient to establish the jurisdictional element of venue when, from the circumstances adduced, it is as reasonable and possible that the crime was committed beyond the jurisdiction of the court. Brown v. State, 52 Ga. App. 536, 183 S.E. 848 (1936).
Jurisdiction held established by record.
- When there was undisputed testimony that the misdemeanor crimes with which the defendant was charged and convicted occurred in DeKalb County, Georgia, and that the defendant was identified as the perpetrator of the offenses, the record affirmatively established that the state court of DeKalb County exercised both personal and subject matter jurisdiction over the defendant. Freeman v. State, 194 Ga. App. 905, 392 S.E.2d 330 (1990).
Under O.C.G.A. § 17-2-1(b)(1), Georgia had subject matter jurisdiction over a kidnapping case even though the victim was killed in South Carolina. As the victim was abducted in Georgia, the kidnapping occurred there; when the victim was later injured in South Carolina, it was nevertheless a bodily injury for purposes of the Georgia kidnapping. Hunsberger v. State, 299 Ga. App. 593, 683 S.E.2d 150 (2009).
Evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of concealing the death of another because, notwithstanding that the victim was killed and placed in the trunk of a car in South Carolina, the undisputed evidence showed that the car was set on fire in Georgia with the intent to conceal the victim's death. Clary v. State, 344 Ga. App. 710, 812 S.E.2d 31 (2018).
Venue established by defendant's residence from which crime committed.
- Because a police officer testified that the defendant sold methamphetamine from the defendant's residence, the state met the state's burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that venue of the crimes charged was properly in the county in which the defendant was tried; therefore, the trial court properly denied the defendant's motion for a new trial. Borders v. State, 299 Ga. App. 100, 682 S.E.2d 148 (2009).
Jurisdiction established.
- State had jurisdiction to prosecute the defendant for computer child exploitation because the evidence showed that after being told that the person the defendant thought was a 14-year-old girl lived in Georgia, the defendant violated O.C.G.A. § 16-12-100.2 by utilizing computer on-line services to communicate with the purported child and entice the child to meet the defendant to engage in sexual activity. Brown v. State, 321 Ga. App. 798, 743 S.E.2d 474 (2013).
State had jurisdiction to prosecute the defendant for attempted child molestation because the defendant committed the crime at least partly within Georgia when the defendant took a substantial step in Georgia toward committing child molestation, namely by traveling to Georgia to meet with a person the defendant thought was a 14-year-old girl for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity. Brown v. State, 321 Ga. App. 798, 743 S.E.2d 474 (2013).
Because it was undisputed that the defendant's crimes took place in Fulton County and that the defendant was tried in Fulton County, the defendant failed to demonstrate that the convictions were void for lack of jurisdiction or improper venue. Brown v. State, 346 Ga. App. 245, 816 S.E.2d 111 (2018).
Because the undisputed evidence presented at trial showed that the child was present in Georgia for at least some period of time after suffering an older bone break, even if the charged conduct occurred outside of Georgia, the result occurred in Georgia, and the defendant's jurisdictional challenge was without merit. Hines v. State, 353 Ga. App. 710, 839 S.E.2d 208 (2020).
High speed chase.
- Because a police officer was involved in a high-speed chase with the defendant through two counties and because the officer kept the defendant in sight throughout the entire chase, venue was proper in the county in which the chase began. Ryan v. State, 277 Ga. App. 490, 627 S.E.2d 128 (2006).
Cited in Anderson v. State, 249 Ga. 132, 287 S.E.2d 195 (1982); Stevens v. State, 176 Ga. App. 583, 336 S.E.2d 846 (1985); Raftis v. State, 175 Ga. App. 893, 334 S.E.2d 857 (1985); Fulton County v. State, 282 Ga. 570, 651 S.E.2d 679 (2007).
RESEARCH REFERENCES
Am. Jur. 2d.
- 21 Am. Jur. 2d, Criminal Law, §§ 6, 472 et seq., 482 et seq.
C.J.S.- 22 C.J.S., Criminal Procedure and Rights of the Accused, §§ 124 et seq., 132 et seq., 154 et seq.
ALR.
- Absence from state at time of offense as affecting jurisdiction of offense, 42 A.L.R. 272.
Constitutionality of statute for prosecution of offense in county other than that in which it was committed, 76 A.L.R. 1034.
Adequacy of remedy by appeal in criminal cases to preclude prohibition sought on the ground of lack or loss of jurisdiction, 141 A.L.R. 1262.
Civil and criminal liability of soldiers, sailors, and militiamen, 158 A.L.R. 1462.
Jurisdiction and venue of criminal charge for child desertion or nonsupport as affected by nonresidence of parent or child, 44 A.L.R.2d 886.
Jurisdiction to prosecute conspirator who was not in state at time of substantive criminal act, for offense committed pursuant to conspiracy, 5 A.L.R.3d 887.
Choice of venue to which transfer is to be had where change is sought because of local prejudice, 50 A.L.R.3d 760.
Necessity of proving venue or territorial jurisdiction of criminal offense beyond reasonable doubt, 67 A.L.R.3d 988.
Modern status of rule relating to jurisdiction of state court to try criminal defendant brought within jurisdiction illegally or as result of fraud or mistake, 25 A.L.R.4th 157.