reglab/housing_qa huggingface dataset:
GA Code § 15-21-209 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 15 - Courts|Chapter 21 - Payment and Disposition of Fines and Forfeitures|Article 11 - Safe Harbor for Sexually Exploited Children Fund|§ 15-21-209. State Operation Assessment Against Adult Entertainment Establishments; Determination of Obligation; Use of Funds; Administration

  By April 30 of each calendar year, each adult entertainment establishment shall pay to the commissioner of revenue a state operation assessment equal to the greater of 1 percent of the previous calendar year's gross revenue or $5,000.00. This state assessment shall be in addition to any other fees and assessments required by the county or municipality authorizing the operation of an adult entertainment business.   The previous year's gross revenue of an adult entertainment establishment shall be determined based upon tax returns filed with the Department of Revenue. The commissioner of revenue may, by rule or regulation, require other reports or returns to be filed by an adult entertainment establishment as he or she deems appropriate.   The assessments collected pursuant to this Code section shall be remitted to the Safe Harbor for Sexually Exploited Children Fund Commission, to be deposited into the Safe Harbor for Sexually Exploited Children Fund.   The assessments imposed by this Code section shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes due the state in Title 48 and appeals of such assessments shall be within the jurisdiction of the Georgia Tax Tribunal in accordance with Chapter 13A of Title 50.   The commissioner of revenue shall be authorized to promulgate any rules and regulations he or she deems necessary to implement and administer the provisions of this Code section.     (Code 1981, §15-21-209, enacted by Ga. L. 2015, p. 675, § 3-1/SB 8.)
GA Code § 16-2-1 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 16 - Crimes and Offenses|Chapter 2 - Criminal Liability|Article 1 - Culpability|§ 16-2-1. "Crime" Defined

  A "crime" is a violation of a statute of this state in which there is a joint operation of an act or omission to act and intention or criminal negligence.   Criminal negligence is an act or failure to act which demonstrates a willful, wanton, or reckless disregard for the safety of others who might reasonably be expected to be injured thereby.    (Laws 1833, Cobb's 1851 Digest, p. 779; Code 1863, § 4188; Code 1868, § 4227; Code 1873, § 4292; Code 1882, § 4292; Penal Code 1895, § 31; Penal Code 1910, § 31; Code 1933, § 26-201; Code 1933, § 26-601, enacted by Ga. L. 1968, p. 1249, § 1; Ga. L. 2004, p. 57, § 2.)   Editor's notes.   - Ga. L. 2004, p. 57, § 6, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that the amendment by that Act shall apply to all crimes which occur on or after July 1, 2004.   Law reviews.   - For article on 2004 amendment of this Code section, see 21 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 45 (2004). For note, "I Tolled You I Had More Time!: The Future of Tolling Looks Bright for Crime Victims, as the Georgia Court of Appeals Establishes New Meaning of O.C.G.A. § 9-3-99," see 68 Mercer L. Rev. 557 (2017).   JUDICIAL DECISIONS   ANALYSIS    General Consideration   Intent   Criminal Negligence    RESEARCH REFERENCES   Am. Jur. 2d.   - 21 Am. Jur. 2d, Criminal Law, § 1 et seq.   C.J.S.   - 22 C.J.S., Criminal Law: Substantive Principles, §§ 28, 35, 41.
GA Code § 16-2-2 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 16 - Crimes and Offenses|Chapter 2 - Criminal Liability|Article 1 - Culpability|§ 16-2-2. Effect of Misfortune or Accident on Guilt

 A person shall not be found guilty of any crime committed by misfortune or accident where it satisfactorily appears there was no criminal scheme or undertaking, intention, or criminal negligence.   (Laws 1833, Cobb's 1851 Digest, p. 779; Code 1863, § 4198; Code 1868, § 4237; Code 1873, § 4302; Code 1882, § 4302; Penal Code 1895, § 40; Penal Code 1910, § 40; Code 1933, § 26-404; Code 1933, § 26-602, enacted by Ga. L. 1968, p. 1249, § 1.)   RESEARCH REFERENCES   Am. Jur. 2d.   - 21 Am. Jur. 2d, Criminal Law, § 4.   ALR.   - Criminal responsibility of druggist for death or injury in consequence of mistake, 55 A.L.R.2d 714.   Homicide predicated on improper treatment of disease or injury, 45 A.L.R.3d 114.   Homicide: burden of proof on defense that killing was accidental, 63 A.L.R.3d 936.
GA Code § 16-2-4 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 16 - Crimes and Offenses|Chapter 2 - Criminal Liability|Article 1 - Culpability|§ 16-2-4. Presumption That Acts of Sound Person Willful

 The acts of a person of sound mind and discretion are presumed to be the product of the person's will but the presumption may be rebutted.   (Code 1933, § 26-603, enacted by Ga. L. 1968, p. 1249, § 1.)   RESEARCH REFERENCES   ALR.    - Flight as evidence of guilt, 25 A.L.R. 886.   Homicide: burden of proof on defense that killing was accidental, 63 A.L.R.3d 936.   Coercion, compulsion, or duress as defense to charge of robbery, larceny, or related crime, 1 A.L.R.4th 481.   Challenges to pre- and post-conviction forfeitures and to post-conviction restitution under animal cruelty statutes, 70 A.L.R.6th 329.
GA Code § 16-2-5 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 16 - Crimes and Offenses|Chapter 2 - Criminal Liability|Article 1 - Culpability|§ 16-2-5. Presumption That Sound Person Intends Natural and Probable Consequences of Acts

 A person of sound mind and discretion is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his acts but the presumption may be rebutted.   (Code 1933, § 26-604, enacted by Ga. L. 1968, p. 1249, § 1.)   RESEARCH REFERENCES   Am. Jur. 2d.   - 29 Am. Jur. 2d, Evidence, § 281.   C.J.S.   - 22 C.J.S., Criminal Law: Substantive Principles, § 39.   ALR.   - Homicide: burden of proof on defense that killing was accidental, 63 A.L.R.3d 936.
GA Code § 16-2-6 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 16 - Crimes and Offenses|Chapter 2 - Criminal Liability|Article 1 - Culpability|§ 16-2-6. Intention a Question of Fact

 A person will not be presumed to act with criminal intention but the trier of facts may find such intention upon consideration of the words, conduct, demeanor, motive, and all other circumstances connected with the act for which the accused is prosecuted.   (Laws 1833, Cobb's 1851 Digest, p. 779; Code 1863, § 4189; Code 1868, § 4228; Code 1873, § 4298; Code 1882, § 4293; Penal Code 1895, § 32; Penal Code 1910, § 32; Code 1933, § 26-202; Code 1933, § 26-605, enacted by Ga. L. 1968, p. 1249, § 1.)   RESEARCH REFERENCES   Am. Jur. 2d.   - 29 Am. Jur. 2d, Evidence, §§ 281, 439 et seq. 75 Am. Jur. 2d, Trial, §§ 324, 325, 326.   C.J.S.   - 22 C.J.S., Criminal Law: Substantive Principles, § 34 et seq.   ALR.    - Criminal responsibility of one who acts as decoy to detect commission of crime, 120 A.L.R. 1506.   Series of takings over a period of time as involving single or separate larcenies, 53 A.L.R.3d 398.   Homicide: burden of proof on defense that killing was accidental, 63 A.L.R.3d 936.   Remoteness in time of other similar offenses committed by accused as affecting admissibility of evidence thereof in prosecution for sex offense, 88 A.L.R.3d 8.   Robbery, attempted robbery, or assault to commit robbery, as affected by intent to collect or secure debt or claim, 88 A.L.R.3d 1309.
GA Code § 16-3-4 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 16 - Crimes and Offenses|Chapter 3 - Defenses to Criminal Prosecutions|Article 1 - Responsibility|§ 16-3-4. Intoxication

  A person shall not be found guilty of a crime when, at the time of the act, omission, or negligence constituting the crime, the person, because of involuntary intoxication, did not have sufficient mental capacity to distinguish between right and wrong in relation to such act.   Involuntary intoxication means intoxication caused by:   Consumption of a substance through excusable ignorance; or   The coercion, fraud, artifice, or contrivance of another person.     Voluntary intoxication shall not be an excuse for any criminal act or omission.    (Laws 1833, Cobb's 1851 Digest, p. 779; Code 1863, § 4197; Code 1868, § 4236; Code 1873, § 4301; Code 1882, § 4301; Penal Code 1895, § 39; Penal Code 1910, § 39; Code 1933, § 26-403; Code 1933, § 26-704, enacted by Ga. L. 1968, p. 1249, § 1.)   Cross references.   - Voidable nature of contracts made by intoxicated persons, § 13-3-25.    Mental capacity as it relates to competency to stand trial and as it relates to culpability for criminal acts, §§ 17-7-130,17-7-131.    Driving under influence of alcohol or drugs, § 40-6-391.   Law reviews.   - For article discussing the theory of insanity in criminal law, see 15 Mercer L. Rev. 399 (1964).   JUDICIAL DECISIONS   ANALYSIS    General Consideration   Notice   Application to Specific Crimes   Drug Addiction    RESEARCH REFERENCES   Am. Jur. 2d.   - 21 Am. Jur. 2d, Criminal Law, § 48. 29 Am. Jur. 2d, Evidence, § 570. 75 Am. Jur. 2d, Trial, § 277. 75A Am. Jur. 2d, Trial, § 611 et seq.   Lack of Capacity to Form Specific Intent - Voluntary Intoxication, 5 POF2d 189.   Punitive Damages in Motor Vehicle Litigation - Intoxicated Driver, 18 POF3d 1.   C.J.S.   - 22 C.J.S., Criminal Law: Substantive Principles, § 147.   ALR.    - Drunkenness as affecting existence of elements essential to murder in second degree, 8 A.L.R. 1052.    Voluntary intoxication as defense to homicide, 12 A.L.R. 861; 79 A.L.R. 897.   Effect of voluntary drug intoxication upon criminal responsibility, 73 A.L.R.2d 12.   Modern status of the rules as to voluntary intoxication as defense to criminal charge, 8 A.L.R.3d 1236.   When intoxication deemed involuntary so as to constitute a defense to criminal charge, 73 A.L.R.3d 195.   Validity, construction and effect of Uniform Alcoholism and Intoxication Treatment Act, 85 A.L.R.3d 701.   Adequacy of defense counsel's representation of criminal client - conduct occurring at time of trial regarding issues of diminished capacity, intoxication, and unconsciousness, 78 A.L.R.5th 197.   Adequacy of defense counsel's representation of criminal client - pretrial conduct or conduct at unspecified time regarding issues of diminished capacity, intoxication, and unconsciousness, 79 A.L.R.5th 419.
GA Code § 16-3-5 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 16 - Crimes and Offenses|Chapter 3 - Defenses to Criminal Prosecutions|Article 1 - Responsibility|§ 16-3-5. Mistake of Fact

 A person shall not be found guilty of a crime if the act or omission to act constituting the crime was induced by a misapprehension of fact which, if true, would have justified the act or omission.   (Code 1933, § 26-705, enacted by Ga. L. 1968, p. 1249, § 1; Ga. L. 1969, p. 857, § 3.)   RESEARCH REFERENCES   Am. Jur. 2d.   - 21 Am. Jur. 2d, Criminal Law, § 148.   C.J.S.   - 22 C.J.S., Criminal Law: Substantive Principles, § 125.   ALR.    - Reliance upon advice of counsel as affecting criminal responsibility, 133 A.L.R. 1055.   Relief to owner of motor vehicle subject to state forfeiture for use in violation of narcotics laws, 50 A.L.R.3d 172.   Unintentional killing of or injury to third person during attempted self-defense, 55 A.L.R.3d 620.   Mistake or lack of information as to victim's age as defense to statutory rape, 46 A.L.R.5th 499.
GA Code § 16-3-22 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 16 - Crimes and Offenses|Chapter 3 - Defenses to Criminal Prosecutions|Article 2 - Justification and Excuse|§ 16-3-22. Immunity From Criminal Liability of Persons Rendering Assistance to Law Enforcement Officers

  Any person who renders assistance reasonably and in good faith to any law enforcement officer who is being hindered in the performance of his official duties or whose life is being endangered by the conduct of any other person or persons while performing his official duties shall be immune to the same extent as the law enforcement officer from any criminal liability that might otherwise be incurred or imposed as a result of rendering assistance to the law enforcement officer.   The official report of the law enforcement agency shall create a rebuttable presumption of good faith and reasonableness on the part of the person who assists the law enforcement officer.   The purpose of this Code section is to provide for those persons who act in good faith to assist law enforcement officers whose health and safety is being adversely affected and threatened by the conduct of any other person or persons. This Code section shall be liberally construed so as to carry out the purposes thereof.    (Code 1933, § 27-219, enacted by Ga. L. 1967, p. 745, §§ 1, 2.)   Cross references.   - Exercise of power of arrest by private persons generally, § 17-4-60 et seq.   JUDICIAL DECISIONS    Cited in Carter v. State, 129 Ga. App. 536, 199 S.E.2d 925 (1973).   RESEARCH REFERENCES   Am. Jur. 2d.   - 5 Am. Jur. 2d, Arrest, §§ 24, 127. 70 Am. Jur. 2d, Sheriffs, Police, and Constables, §§ 39, 63 et seq.   C.J.S.   - 22 C.J.S., Criminal Procedure and Rights of the Accused, § 104.   ALR.    - Accident insurance: aiding peace officer as voluntary exposure to unnecessary danger, 17 A.L.R. 191.
GA Code § 16-3-22.1 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 16 - Crimes and Offenses|Chapter 3 - Defenses to Criminal Prosecutions|Article 2 - Justification and Excuse|§ 16-3-22.1. Persons Who Provide Assistance to Law Enforcement Officers or the Division of Family and Children Services When the Health and Safety of Children Are Adversely Affected and Threatened

  Any person that in good faith has possession of materials or images in violation of Article 3 of Chapter 12 of this title and immediately notifies law enforcement officials or any person that is required by Code Section 19-7-5 to report suspected child abuse, or makes such notification within 72 hours from the time there is reasonable cause to believe such person is in possession of such materials or images, shall be immune to the same extent as a law enforcement officer would be immune from criminal liability for such possession.   The official report of the law enforcement agency or the Division of Family and Children Services of the Department of Human Services shall create a rebuttable presumption of good faith and reasonableness on the part of the person that has possession.   The purpose of this Code section is to provide for those persons that act in good faith to assist law enforcement officers or the Division of Family and Children Services of the Department of Human Services when the health and safety of a child are being adversely affected and threatened by the conduct of another. This Code section shall be liberally construed so as to carry out the purposes thereof.     (Code 1981, §16-3-22.1, enacted by Ga. L. 2016, p. 773, § 1/HB 905.)
GA Code § 16-3-23.1 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 16 - Crimes and Offenses|Chapter 3 - Defenses to Criminal Prosecutions|Article 2 - Justification and Excuse|§ 16-3-23.1. No Duty to Retreat Prior to Use of Force in Self-Defense

 A person who uses threats or force in accordance with Code Section 16-3-21, relating to the use of force in defense of self or others, Code Section 16-3-23, relating to the use of force in defense of a habitation, or Code Section 16-3-24, relating to the use of force in defense of property other than a habitation, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use force as provided in said Code sections, including deadly force.    (Code 1981, §16-3-23.1, enacted by Ga. L. 2006, p. 477, § 1/SB 396.)   RESEARCH REFERENCES   ALR.   - Construction and application of "make my day" and "stand your ground" statutes, 76 A.L.R.6th 1.
GA Code § 16-3-24.1 (2021)
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).
GA Code § 16-3-26 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 16 - Crimes and Offenses|Chapter 3 - Defenses to Criminal Prosecutions|Article 2 - Justification and Excuse|§ 16-3-26. Coercion

 A person is not guilty of a crime, except murder, if the act upon which the supposed criminal liability is based is performed under such coercion that the person reasonably believes that performing the act is the only way to prevent his imminent death or great bodily injury.   (Laws 1833, Cobb's 1851 Digest, p. 780; Code 1863, § 4202; Code 1868, § 4238; Code 1873, § 4303; Code 1882, § 4303; Penal Code 1895, § 41; Penal Code 1910, § 41; Code 1933, § 26-402; Code 1933, § 26-906, enacted by Ga. L. 1968, p. 1249, § 1.)   RESEARCH REFERENCES   Am. Jur. 2d.   - 21 Am. Jur. 2d, Criminal Law, § 137 et seq.   ALR.    - Effect of coverture upon the criminal responsibility of a woman, 4 A.L.R. 266; 71 A.L.R. 1116.   Coercion, compulsion, or duress as defense to criminal prosecution, 40 A.L.R.2d 908.   Coercion, compulsion, or duress as defense to charge of robbery, larceny, or related crime, 1 A.L.R.4th 481.   Coercion, compulsion, or duress as defense to charge of kidnapping, 69 A.L.R.4th 1005.   Defense of necessity, duress, or coercion in prosecution for violation of state narcotics laws, 1 A.L.R.5th 938.   Ineffective assistance of counsel: compulsion, duress, necessity, or "hostage syndrome" defense, 8 A.L.R.5th 713.   Duress, necessity, or conditions of confinement as justification for escape from prison, 54 A.L.R.5th 141.
GA Code § 16-3-27 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 16 - Crimes and Offenses|Chapter 3 - Defenses to Criminal Prosecutions|Article 2 - Justification and Excuse|§ 16-3-27. Benefit of Clergy

 Since it is no longer needed or appropriate, the ancient device of benefit of clergy shall not exist.   (Laws 1833, Cobb's 1851 Digest, p. 837; Code 1863, § 4547; Code 1868, § 4567; Code 1873, § 4661; Code 1882, § 4661; Penal Code 1895, § 17; Penal Code 1910, § 17; Code 1933, § 26-102; Code 1933, § 26-202, enacted by Ga. L. 1968, p. 1249, § 1.)
GA Code § 16-3-28 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 16 - Crimes and Offenses|Chapter 3 - Defenses to Criminal Prosecutions|Article 2 - Justification and Excuse|§ 16-3-28. Affirmative Defenses

 A defense based upon any of the provisions of this article is an affirmative defense.   (Code 1933, § 26-907, enacted by Ga. L. 1968, p. 1249, § 1.)   Law reviews.   - For survey article on criminal law, see 60 Mercer L. Rev. 85 (2008).   JUDICIAL DECISIONS    Affirmative defense admits doing act charged, but seeks to justify, excuse, or mitigate it. Cowart v. State, 136 Ga. App. 528, 221 S.E.2d 649 (1975), aff'd, 237 Ga. 282, 227 S.E.2d 248, overruled on other grounds, 137 Ga. App. 735, 224 S.E.2d 856 (1976).   Burden of proof of affirmative defenses rests entirely upon state.    - Charges which place any burden of persuasion upon defendant in criminal cases shall not be given and such charges will be deemed erroneous and subject to reversal, absent harmless error and invited error; even when defendant raises one of the affirmative defenses defined in the Criminal Code (see now O.C.G.A. Ch. 3, T. 16), the burden of proof still rest entirely upon the state as it does with all other issues in the case. State v. McNeill, 234 Ga. 696, 217 S.E.2d 281 (1975); Perkins v. State, 151 Ga. App. 199, 259 S.E.2d 193 (1979).    Trial court erred in failing to charge the jury that the state had the burden of disproving defendant's affirmative defense of accident beyond a reasonable doubt. Griffin v. State, 267 Ga. 586, 481 S.E.2d 223 (1997).    Burden of putting forward affirmative defense is on defendant, though the state has the burden of disproving the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. McNeill, 234 Ga. 696, 217 S.E.2d 281 (1975).    Defendant need not negate any elements of crime which state must prove to convict. Holloway v. McElroy, 241 Ga. 400, 245 S.E.2d 658 (1978).    Burden placed on defendant to excuse homicide is an affirmative defense. Holloway v. McElroy, 241 Ga. 400, 245 S.E.2d 658 (1978).   Mistake of fact defense inapplicable.    - Mistake of fact defense was not applicable because the defendant did not admit participation in the murder and, in fact, denied any involvement. Murphy v. State, 280 Ga. 158, 625 S.E.2d 764 (2006).    For discussion of entrapment as affirmative defense, see State v. McNeill, 234 Ga. 696, 217 S.E.2d 281 (1975).    Cited in Chambers v. State, 127 Ga. App. 196, 192 S.E.2d 916 (1972); Rivers v. State, 250 Ga. 288, 298 S.E.2d 10 (1982); Aleman v. State, 227 Ga. App. 607, 489 S.E.2d 867 (1997); Norris v. State, 227 Ga. App. 616, 489 S.E.2d 875 (1997); Manning v. State, 231 Ga. App. 584, 499 S.E.2d 650 (1998); Graham v. State, 239 Ga. App. 429, 521 S.E.2d 249 (1999); Bailey v. State, 245 Ga. App. 852, 539 S.E.2d 191 (2000); Mathis v. State, Ga. App. , S.E.2d (May 20, 2009); Hines v. State, 308 Ga. App. 299, 707 S.E.2d 534 (2011).   RESEARCH REFERENCES   ALR.   - Homicide: modern status of rules as to burden and quantum of proof to show self-defense, 43 A.L.R.3d 221.