GA Code § 24-13-1 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 24 - Evidence|Chapter 13 - Securing Attendance of Witnesses and Production and Preservation of Evidence|Article 1 - General Provisions|§ 24-13-1. Freedom of Witnesses From Arrest

 A witness shall not be arrested on any civil process while attending any court to which he or she is subpoenaed or otherwise required to attend as a witness or while going to or returning from such court. An officer who holds such witness imprisoned after seeing his or her subpoena or being satisfied of the fact that such person was a witness shall be liable for false imprisonment.    (Code 1981, §24-13-1, enacted by Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 2/HB 24.)   Law reviews.   - For article, "Dancing with the Big Boys: Georgia Adopts (most of) the Federal Rules of Evidence," see 63 Mercer L. Rev. 1 (2011). For comment on White v. Henry, 232 Ga. 64, 205 S.E.2d 206 (1974), see 26 Mercer L. Rev. 317 (1974).   JUDICIAL DECISIONS   Editor's notes.   - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former Code 1882, § 3850, former Civil Code 1910, § 5854, former Code 1933, § 38-1506, and former O.C.G.A. § 24-10-1 are included in the annotations for this Code section.   In general.    - Nonresident witness or suitor in attendance upon the trial of any case in court was exempt from service of any writ or summons while so attending and in going to or returning from the court. Ewing v. Elliott, 51 Ga. App. 565, 181 S.E. 123 (1935) (decided under former Code 1933, § 38-1506); Ausbon v. Ausbon, 131 Ga. App. 530, 206 S.E.2d 546 (1974);.   Service is voidable.    - Service of process in violation of the former statute was not void, but voidable upon proper action in proper time by the person served. Thornton v. American Writing Mach. Co., 83 Ga. 288, 9 S.E. 679, 20 Am. St. R. 320 (1889) (decided under former Code 1882, § 3850).   Officer's satisfaction.    - It was not essential that a witness show any subpoena to the sheriff, all that was required was that the officer be "satisfied of the fact." Turner v. McGee, 217 Ga. 769, 125 S.E.2d 36 (1962).   Nonjudicial proceedings.    - Privilege of exemption from service was not only assured while a nonresident was attending upon strictly judicial proceedings, but upon any tribunal whose business had reference to or was intended to affect judicial proceedings. Ewing v. Elliott, 51 Ga. App. 565, 181 S.E. 123 (1935).   Inapplicable to criminal defendant.    - Privilege was limited to witnesses and did not apply to a defendant in a criminal case. Rogers v. Rogers, 138 Ga. 803, 76 S.E. 48 (1912) (decided under former Civil Code 1910, § 5854); Warren v. Hiers, 105 Ga. App. 202, 124 S.E.2d 445 (1962);.   Applicable to criminal defendant.    - Immunity from civil process extended to a nonresident defendant who voluntarily appeared in answer to a criminal charge or who appeared in compliance with a bail bond, because the defendant's appearance saved the state the expense, delay, and uncertainty of extradition and promoted the orderly, expeditious, and unobstructed administration of justice. White v. Henry, 232 Ga. 64, 205 S.E.2d 206 (1974) (decided under former Code 1933, § 38-1506),for comment, see 26 Mercer L. Rev. 317 (1974).   Parties.    - Suitors were exempted from arrest while going to, attending on, or returning from court and the fact that one of the suitors resided out of the state and has previously had the suitors adversary arrested under bail process did not justify a departure from the practice. Lomax v. Lomax, 176 Ga. 605, 168 S.E. 863 (1933).   Deposition.    - If a person was present in a county other than that of the person's residence for the sole purpose of attending the taking of depositions therein in a case to which the person was a party, and advantage was taken of the person's presence to serve process on the person in another action, to compel the person to defend it in a jurisdiction other than that of the person's residence, the service of such process should have been quashed. Ewing v. Elliott, 51 Ga. App. 565, 181 S.E. 123 (1935).   Service of habitual-violator notice.    - Former O.C.G.A. § 24-10-1 did not immunize defendant from service of notice that the defendant was a habitual violator under O.C.G.A. § 40-5-58 while defendant was being tried on an unrelated offense, since former § 24-10-1 pertained to civil process, and service of notice of revocation under § 40-5-58 was not service of a civil process. Hill v. State, 162 Ga. App. 637, 292 S.E.2d 512 (1982).   RESEARCH REFERENCES   ALR.    - Waiver of privilege against or nonliability to arrest in civil action, 8 A.L.R. 754.    Duration of imprisonment for refusal to answer question as a witness before the grand jury, 28 A.L.R. 1364.   Privilege of party, witness, or attorney while going to, attending, or returning from court as extending to privilege from arrest for crime, 74 A.L.R.2d 592.   Immunity from service of process as affected by relationship between subject matters of litigation in which process was issued, and litigation which nonresident served was attending, 84 A.L.R.2d 421.