ARTICLE 1 - RESPONSIBILITY§ 16-3-1 - Minimum ageO.C.G.A. 16-3-1 (2010)16-3-1. Minimum age

A person shall not be considered or found guilty of a crime unless he

has attained the age of 13 years at the time of the act, omission, or

negligence.

• O.C.G.A. 16-3-2 (2010)16-3-2. Mental capacity; insanity

A person shall not be found guilty of a crime if, at the time of the act, omission, or negligence constituting the crime, the person did not have mental capacity to distinguish between right and wrong in relation to such act, omission, or negligence.

• .C.G.A. 16-3-3 (2010)16-3-3. Delusional compulsion

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 mental disease, injury, or congenital deficiency, acted as he did because of a delusional compulsion as to such act which overmastered his will to resist committing the crime.

• § 16-3-4 - Intoxication• O.C.G.A. 16-3-4 (2010)

16-3-4. Intoxication

(a) 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.

(b) Involuntary intoxication means intoxication caused by:

(1) Consumption of a substance through excusable ignorance; or

(2) The coercion, fraud, artifice, or contrivance of another person.

(c) Voluntary intoxication shall not be an excuse for any criminal act or omission.

• O.C.G.A. 16-3-5 (2010)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

• O.C.G.A. 16-3-20 (2010)16-3-20. Justification

The fact that a person's conduct is justified is a defense to prosecution for any crime based on that conduct. The defense of justification can be claimed:

(1) When the person's conduct is justified under Code Section 16-3-21, 16-3-23, 16-3-24, 16-3-25, or 16-3-26;

(2) When the person's conduct is in reasonable fulfillment of his duties as a government officer or employee;

(3) When the person's conduct is the reasonable discipline of a minor by his parent or a person in loco parentis;

(4) When the person's conduct is reasonable and is performed in the course of making a lawful arrest;

(5) When the person's conduct is justified for any other reason under the laws of this state; or

(6) In all other instances which stand upon the same footing of reason and justice as those enumerated in this article.

• 2006 Georgia Code - 16-3-21• 16-3-21. (a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to

the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other´s imminent use of unlawful force; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23, a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. (b) A person is not justified in using force under the circumstances specified in subsection (a) of this Code section if he: (1) Initially provokes the use of force against himself with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant; (2) Is attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony; or (3) Was the aggressor or was engaged in a combat by agreement unless he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so and the other, notwithstanding, continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force. (c) Any rule, regulation, or policy of any agency of the state or any ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, or policy of any county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state which is in conflict with this Code section shall be null, void, and of no force and effect. (d) In a prosecution for murder or manslaughter, if a defendant raises as a defense a justification provided by subsection (a) of this Code section, the defendant, in order to establish the defendant´s reasonable belief that the use of force or deadly force was immediately necessary, may be permitted to offer: (1) Relevant evidence that the defendant had been the victim of acts of family violence or child abuse committed by the deceased, as such acts are described in Code Sections 19-13-1 and 19-15-1, respectively; and (2) Relevant expert testimony regarding the condition of the mind of the defendant at the time of the offense, including those relevant facts and circumstances relating to the family violence or child abuse that are the bases of the expert´s opinion.

• § 16-3-22 - Immunity from criminal liability of persons rendering assistance to law enforcement officers

• O.C.G.A. 16-3-22 (2010)16-3-22. Immunity from criminal liability of persons rendering assistance to law enforcement officers

(a) 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.

(b) 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.

(c) 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.

• § 16-3-23 - Use of force in defense of habitation• O.C.G.A. 16-3-23 (2010)

16-3-23. Use of force in defense of habitation

A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a habitation; however, such person is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:

(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner and he or she reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal violence;

(2) That force is used against another person who is not a member of the family or household and who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using such force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred; or

(3) The person using such force reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.

• O.C.G.A. 16-3-25 (2010)16-3-25. Entrapment

A person is not guilty of a crime if, by entrapment, his conduct is induced or solicited by a government officer or employee, or agent of either, for the purpose of obtaining evidence to be used in prosecuting the person for commission of the crime. Entrapment exists where the idea and intention of the commission of the crime originated with a government officer or employee, or with an agent of either, and he, by undue persuasion, incitement, or deceitful means, induced the accused to commit the act which the accused would not have committed except for the conduct of such officer.

• § 16-3-26 - Coercion• O.C.G.A. 16-3-26 (2010)

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.

• CHAPTER 3. DEFENSES TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS ARTICLE 3. ALIBI O.C.G.A. § 16-3-40 (2014)§ 16-3-40. Alibi

The defense of alibi involves the impossibility of the accused's presence at the scene of the offense at the time of its commission. The range of the evidence in respect to time and place must be such as reasonably to exclude the possibility of presence.

• TITLE 16. CRIMES AND OFFENSES CHAPTER 4. CRIMINAL ATTEMPT, CONSPIRACY, AND SOLICITATION O.C.G.A. § 16-4-1 (2014)§ 16-4-1. Criminal attempt

A person commits the offense of criminal attempt when, with intent to commit a specific crime, he performs any act which constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of that crime.

•TITLE 16. CRIMES AND OFFENSES CHAPTER 4. CRIMINAL ATTEMPT, CONSPIRACY, AND SOLICITATION O.C.G.A. § 16-4-4 (2014)§ 16-4-4. Impossibility as a defense

It is no defense to a charge of criminal attempt that the crime the accused is charged with attempting was, under the attendant circumstances, factually or legally impossible of commission if such crime could have been committed had the attendant circumstances been as the accused believed them to be.

•TITLE 16. CRIMES AND OFFENSES CHAPTER 4. CRIMINAL ATTEMPT, CONSPIRACY, AND SOLICITATION O.C.G.A. § 16-4-5 (2014)§ 16-4-5. Abandonment of effort to commit a crime as an affirmative defense

(a) When a person's conduct would otherwise constitute an attempt to commit a crime under Code Section 16-4-1, it is an affirmative defense that he abandoned his effort to commit the crime or in any other manner prevented its commission under circumstances manifesting a voluntary and complete renunciation of his criminal purpose.

(b) A renunciation of criminal purpose is not voluntary and complete if it results from:

(1) A belief that circumstances exist which increase the probability of detection or apprehension of the person or which render more difficult the accomplishment of the criminal purpose; or

(2) A decision to postpone the criminal conduct until another time.

• TITLE 16. CRIMES AND OFFENSES CHAPTER 4. CRIMINAL ATTEMPT, CONSPIRACY, AND SOLICITATION O.C.G.A. § 16-4-9 (2014)§ 16-4-9. Withdrawal by coconspirator from agreement to commit crime

A coconspirator may be relieved from the effects of Code Section 16-4-8 if he can show that before the overt act occurred he withdrew his agreement to commit a crime.

• TITLE 16. CRIMES AND OFFENSES CHAPTER 4. CRIMINAL ATTEMPT, CONSPIRACY, AND SOLICITATION O.C.G.A. § 16-4-7 (2014)§ 16-4-7. Criminal solicitation

(a) A person commits the offense of criminal solicitation when, with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony, he solicits, requests, commands, importunes, or otherwise attempts to cause the other person to engage in such conduct.

(b) A person convicted of the offense of criminal solicitation to commit a felony shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than three years. A person convicted of the offense of criminal solicitation to commit a crime punishable by death or by life imprisonment shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years.

(c) It is no defense to a prosecution for criminal solicitation that the person solicited could not be guilty of the crime solicited.

(d) The provisions of subsections (a) through (c) of this Code section are cumulative and shall not supersede any other penal law of this state.