2020 Georgia Code
Title 17 - Criminal Procedure
Chapter 15A - Compensation for Criminally Inflicted Property Damage
§ 17-15A-4. Removal of Graffiti by Inmates; No Waiver of Sovereign Immunity; No Fees to Property Owners

1. In order to provide a form of compensation by the state to innocent victims of criminal trespass in violation of Code Section 16-7-21 or criminal damage to property in the second degree in violation of Code Section 16-7-23, either of which crime involved the unlawful placement of graffiti upon private property by a person who was not the owner of such property, the Board of Corrections or any political subdivision of this state may authorize the use of labor by inmates from any penal institution or jail under its authority to remove or obliterate such unlawfully placed graffiti when such graffiti is visible from any public road or other public property. Any such authorization and related supervision of inmates shall be a discretionary function within the meaning of paragraph (2) of Code Section 50-21-24 for purposes of sovereign immunity, and the sovereign immunity of neither the state nor any political subdivision thereof is waived for any loss arising out of such authorization or related supervision of inmates. The Board of Corrections shall provide rules and regulations governing such use of labor by inmates from institutions under its jurisdiction.
2. No graffiti removal program operated by any political subdivision of this state shall charge any fee to any property owner or operator for removal of graffiti from such property.

(Code 1981, §17-15A-4, enacted by Ga. L. 2003, p. 252, § 1.)

- Use of inmate for private gain, § 42-1-5.

- Graffiti removal program, Official Compilation of the Rules and Regulations of the State of Georgia, Board of Corrections, Institutional and Center Operations, Work Standards, Rule 125-3-5-.09.

• 17-16-1. Definitions.
• 17-16-2. Applicability of article.
• 17-16-3. Copy of indictment or accusation and list of witnesses furnished.
• 17-16-4. Disclosure required by prosecuting attorney and defendant; inspections allowed; reducing oral reports to writing; continuing duty to disclose; discovery creating threat of physical or economic harm.
• 17-16-5. Alibi witnesses.
• 17-16-6. Failure to comply with discovery requirements.
• 17-16-7. Statements of witnesses.
• 17-16-8. Lists of names and information concerning witnesses.
• 17-16-9. Reimbursement for costs.
• 17-16-10. Material or information already furnished; who may be called as witness.

• 17-16-20. Applicability of article.
• 17-16-21. Right of the defendant to copy of indictment or accusation and list of witnesses.
• 17-16-22. Right of defendant to copy of statement given while in police custody; failure of prosecution to comply; evidence discovered after filing of request.
• 17-16-23. Right of defendant to copies of written scientific reports; failure to comply.

- Bail for juveniles, § 15-11-507.

Depositions for preservation of testimony in criminal proceedings, § 24-13-130 et seq.

- Ga. L. 1994, p. 1895, § 13, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that this chapter applies to all cases docketed on or after January 1, 1995.

- For annual survey article discussing developments in criminal law, see 52 Mercer L. Rev. 167 (2000).

ARTICLE 1 DEFINITIONS; FELONY CASES

Law reviews.

- For note on the 1994 amendments of Code Sections 17-16-1 to 17-16-9 and enactment of Code Sections 17-16-20 to 17-16-23 of this article, see 11 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 137 (1994). For note on 1995 amendments and enactments of sections in this article, see 12 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 144 (1995).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Constitutionality.

- Because the Criminal Procedure Discovery Act, O.C.G.A. § 17-16-1 et seq., provides for reciprocal discovery in criminal felony cases with any imbalance favoring the defendant, the law does not violate the due process clause of the United States or Georgia Constitutions. State v. Lucious, 271 Ga. 361, 518 S.E.2d 677 (1999).

Pretrial discovery provisions of the Criminal Procedure Discovery Act, O.C.G.A. § 17-16-1 et seq., do not implicate or infringe upon the confrontation clause which guarantees only the right to confront and cross-examine those individuals called to testify against a defendant at trial. State v. Lucious, 271 Ga. 361, 518 S.E.2d 677 (1999).

Reciprocal discovery provisions of the Criminal Procedure Discovery Act, O.C.G.A. § 17-16-1 et seq., do not violate the right to effective representation of counsel by denying the defendant the benefit of counsel's judgment of whether and when to reveal aspects of the defendant's case to the state. State v. Lucious, 271 Ga. 361, 518 S.E.2d 677 (1999).

Amended discovery procedure of O.C.G.A. § 17-16-1 et seq. is not an ex post facto law because the law affects purely procedural rights and duties. Stinski v. State, 281 Ga. 783, 642 S.E.2d 1 (2007).

Amended discovery procedure of O.C.G.A. § 17-16-1 et seq. is not a bill of attainder, which refers to legislative imposition of punishment on specific persons or on a class of persons without any judicial proceeding. Stinski v. State, 281 Ga. 783, 642 S.E.2d 1 (2007).

Amended discovery procedure of O.C.G.A. § 17-16-1 et seq. does not violate due process as it imposes reciprocal discovery upon the state; any difference in the scope of mitigating evidence and the scope of non-statutory aggravating evidence is too minimal to be of constitutional significance on the question of reciprocity of discovery. Stinski v. State, 281 Ga. 783, 642 S.E.2d 1 (2007).

- Failure to request a continuance to cure any prejudice which may result from the state's failure to comply with the requirements of O.C.G.A. § 17-16-1 et seq. waives the right to assert error on appeal stemming from the state's alleged failure to comply with discovery statutes. Shelton v. State, 257 Ga. App. 890, 572 S.E.2d 401 (2002).

- Amended discovery procedure under O.C.G.A. § 17-16-1 et seq. was binding upon a defendant who elected to participate in the procedure before the amendment. Stinski v. State, 281 Ga. 783, 642 S.E.2d 1 (2007).

- Trial court did not err in denying the defendant's request for a continuance based on the state violating the state's discovery obligations and failing to disclose exculpatory evidence when the state failed to provide the defendant with the transporting officer's out-of-state address because the state, acting in the state's role as the prosecution, has no obligation to locate defense witnesses and the defendant failed to show that any alleged discovery violation caused the defendant harm. Lafavor v. State, 334 Ga. App. 125, 778 S.E.2d 377 (2015).