GA Code § 16-9-70 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 16 - Crimes and Offenses|Chapter 9 - Forgery and Fraudulent Practices|Article 5 - Removal or Alteration of Identification From Property|§ 16-9-70. Criminal Use of an Article With an Altered Identification Mark

  As used in this Code section, the term "firearm" shall have the same meaning as set forth in division (a)(6)(A)(iii) of Code Section 16-8-12.   A person commits the offense of criminal use of an article with an altered identification mark when he or she buys, sells, receives, disposes of, conceals, or has in his or her possession a radio, piano, phonograph, sewing machine, washing machine, typewriter, adding machine, comptometer, bicycle, firearm, safe, vacuum cleaner, dictaphone, watch, watch movement, watch case, or any other mechanical or electrical device, appliance, contrivance, material, vessel as defined in Code Section 52-7-3, or other piece of apparatus or equipment, other than a motor vehicle as defined in Code Section 40-1-1, from which he or she knows the manufacturer's name plate, serial number, or any other distinguishing number or identification mark has been removed for the purpose of concealing or destroying the identity of such article.     A person convicted of the offense of criminal use of an article, other than a firearm, with an altered identification mark shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than five years.   A person convicted of the offense of criminal use of a firearm with an altered identification mark shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years; provided, however, that upon a second or subsequent conviction, by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than ten years.     This Code section shall not apply to those cases or instances when any of the changes or alterations enumerated in subsection (b) of this Code section have been customarily made or done as an established practice in the ordinary and regular conduct of business by the original manufacturer or by its duly appointed direct representative or under specific authorization from the original manufacturer.    (Code 1933, § 26-1506, enacted by Ga. L. 1974, p. 434, § 1; Ga. L. 2006, p. 96, § 2/HB 1490; Ga. L. 2018, p. 550, § 4-2/SB 407.)    The 2018 amendment,  effective July 1, 2018, added subsection (a); redesignated former subsections (a) through (c) as present subsections (b) through (d), respectively; designated the existing provisions of subsection (c) as paragraph (c)(1), and, in paragraph (c)(1), inserted ", other than a firearm," near the middle, inserted "guilty of a felony and upon conviction shall be" in the middle, and inserted "year" near the end; added paragraph (c)(2); and, in subsection (d), substituted "shall not apply to those cases or instances when" for "does not apply to those cases or instances where" near the beginning, substituted "subsection (b)" for "subsection (a)" near the middle, and substituted "its duly" for "his duly" in the middle.   Law reviews.   - For article on the 2018 amendment of this Code section, see 35 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 45 (2018).   JUDICIAL DECISIONS    Former Code 1933, § 26-1506 (see now O.C.G.A. § 16-9-70) was not unconstitutional as being too vague to be capable of enforcement. Brooks v. State, 238 Ga. 643, 235 S.E.2d 144 (1977).   Former Code 1933,    § 26-1506 required both proof of possession and guilty knowledge. - Former Code 1933, § 26-1506 (see now O.C.G.A. § 16-9-70) required proof that the appellant not only have possession of an article the serial number of which had been removed, but also that appellant knew the serial number had been removed for the purpose of concealing the identity of such article. Rogers v. State, 139 Ga. App. 656, 229 S.E.2d 132 (1976).   Applicability.    - In view of the plain language of O.C.G.A. § 16-9-70, the statute applied only to a manufacturer's number or identification information; a saddle is not one of the items specified in the statute and is not mechanical or electrical in nature. Waters v. State, 252 Ga. App. 194, 555 S.E.2d 859 (2001).    Defendant must know identification mark has been removed for purpose of concealing or destroying identity. Blair v. State, 144 Ga. App. 118, 240 S.E.2d 319 (1977).   Proof of knowledge by circumstantial evidence.    - Knowledge required under O.C.G.A. § 16-9-70 may be established by circumstantial evidence. Rogers v. State, 139 Ga. App. 656, 229 S.E.2d 132 (1976).    Charge of criminal use of article with altered identification mark includes knowledge that mark was removed to conceal identity of the article, but such knowledge may be proved by circumstantial evidence. GaDonna v. State, 164 Ga. App. 582, 298 S.E.2d 556 (1982).    Knowledge that the identification mark has been removed for purposes of concealing the identity of the article is an essential element of the crime, which may be proved by circumstantial evidence. Power v. State, 260 Ga. 101, 390 S.E.2d 47 (1990).    Evidence that the defendant and the codefendants were arrested in possession of seven weapons, the serial numbers on each having been removed immediately after confronting their victims, constituted circumstantial evidence of the offense sufficient to authorize a jury charge concerning the criminal use of an article with an altered identification mark. Thurman v. State, 249 Ga. App. 390, 547 S.E.2d 715 (2001).   Inference of guilty knowledge.    - That identification mark has been removed may, under certain circumstances, authorize inference of guilty knowledge. Blair v. State, 144 Ga. App. 118, 240 S.E.2d 319 (1977).    Jury's verdict of guilty as to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon was not mutually exclusive of its verdict of not guilty regarding criminal use of an article with an altered identification mark. Fulton v. State, 232 Ga. App. 898, 503 S.E.2d 54 (1998).   Evidence sufficient for conviction.    - See Carter v. State, 180 Ga. App. 173, 348 S.E.2d 715 (1986).    Trial court should have granted defendant's motion for directed verdict, where, although the evidence showed that defendant was aware the serial number on a rifle had been removed, there was no evidence, direct or circumstantial, to show that defendant knew the serial number had been removed for the purpose of concealing the identity of the rifle. Power v. State, 260 Ga. 101, 390 S.E.2d 47 (1990).    Cited in Abrams v. State, 144 Ga. App. 874, 242 S.E.2d 756 (1978); Patterson v. State, 247 Ga. 736, 280 S.E.2d 836 (1981); Patterson v. State, 161 Ga. App. 85, 289 S.E.2d 270 (1982); Gunn v. State, 163 Ga. App. 906, 296 S.E.2d 221 (1982); Martin v. State, 165 Ga. App. 802, 302 S.E.2d 717 (1983); Lane v. State, 169 Ga. App. 63, 311 S.E.2d 240 (1983); Nichols v. State, 210 Ga. App. 134, 435 S.E.2d 502 (1993).   RESEARCH REFERENCES   C.J.S.   - 37 C.J.S., Fraud, §§ 87, 123, 124.   ALR.    - Constitutionality of statute making possession of an automobile from which identifying marks have been removed a crime, 42 A.L.R. 1149.