2021 Georgia Code
Title 16 - Crimes and Offenses
Chapter 3 - Defenses to Criminal Prosecutions
Article 2 - Justification and Excuse
§ 16-3-24.1. Habitation and Personal Property Defined
As used in Code Sections 16-3-23 and 16-3-24, the term "habitation" means any dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and "personal property" means personal property other than a motor vehicle.
(Code 1981, §16-3-24.1, enacted by Ga. L. 1998, p. 1153, § 1.1.)
Law reviews.- For article, "Vigilant or Vigilante? Procedure and Rationale for Immunity in Defense of Habitation and Defense of Property Under the Official Code of Georgia Annotated §§ 16-3-23,16-3-24,16-3-24.1, and16-3-24.2," see 59 Mercer L. Rev. 629 (2008).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Motor vehicles.
- Because trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to predict either the addition of the definition of habitation (which included automobiles) to the statutory scheme, or Georgia Supreme Court precedent, appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to argue that trial counsel was ineffective on that ground. Cochran v. Frazier, F.3d (11th Cir. May 3, 2010)(Unpublished).
Trial court erred by refusing to charge the jury on the defense of habitation because the defendant testified that when the defendant returned to the vehicle with the victim to obtain the defendant's insurance card, after a vehicle collision, the victim reached through the defendant's window and began grabbing the defendant's shoulder and accusing the defendant of not having insurance; that the defendant became nervous and frightened, and that the defendant's son began to cry; and that the defendant drove away from the victim to escape the victim reaching through the window and grabbing the defendant while the victim was verbally accosting the defendant. Salazar-Balderas v. State, 343 Ga. App. 201, 806 S.E.2d 644 (2017).
Jury charge on defense of habitation.
- Although the jury was not specifically instructed on the defense of habitation, the jury was, in fact, instructed on self-defense as well as accident, and the jury rejected all of the appellant's conflicting stories and those defenses and in light of compelling evidence of the appellant's guilt, the alleged error did not likely affect the outcome of the trial court proceedings. State v. Newman, 305 Ga. 792, 827 S.E.2d 678 (2019).
Cited in Wike v. State, 262 Ga. App. 444, 585 S.E.2d 742 (2003); Coleman v. State, 286 Ga. 291, 687 S.E.2d 427 (2009); Smith v. State, 309 Ga. App. 241, 709 S.E.2d 823 (2011); Andrade v. State, 319 Ga. App. 75, 733 S.E.2d 474 (2012); Newman v. State, 309 Ga. 171, 844 S.E.2d 775 (2020).
