Decisiones Judiciales sobre Delitos en Georgia

Explicación Simple

En Georgia, solo hay delitos si violas una ley pública. No existen delitos basados en costumbres antiguas, solo en reglas escritas. Si alguien se siente maltratado en un juicio, puede que no sea justo que lo condenen sin las reglas claras.

Es como cuando juegas un partido de fútbol y el árbitro cambia las reglas a mitad del juego. Si no sabes qué se permite o no, puede parecer injusto cuando te sancionan.

Ejemplo Práctico

Imagina que Juan está en juicio por desacato porque el juez le dijo que no podía hacer más preguntas. Sin embargo, Juan no sabía que su tiempo se había acabado y el juez no le explicó bien. Al final, Juan no debería ser castigado porque no había reglas claras sobre cómo llevar a cabo su interrogatorio.

Texto Original del Estatuto (Inglés)

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Editor's notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions decided prior to codification of this principle of law by Ga. L. 1968, p. 1249, § 1 are included in the annotations for this Code section. Since 1833 we have had only statutory offenses. Kilpatrick v. State, 72 Ga. App. 669 , 34 S.E.2d 719 (1945) (decided under former Code 1933). Violation of public law. - Our law recognizes no crimes save such as consist of violation of a public law, and there are in this state no common-law offenses save such as have been especially recognized by statutory enactment. Moore v. State, 94 Ga. App. 210 , 94 S.E.2d 80 (1956) (decided under former Code 1933). Defendant was improperly convicted of criminal contempt as defendant ended defendant's cross-examination when defendant was told that the time was up, and defendant might have desired to ask additional questions; that the trial court felt that some areas had not been adequately covered or covered only at the end was of no consequence; and the order to reorganize a cross-examination was too vague to be enforceable as the manner in which the cross-examination was organized was more properly left to defendant's discretion, and the exercise of that discretion in a manner different from what the trial court would have exercised was not grounds for finding that defendant willfully violated a trial court order. In re Butterfield, 265 Ga. App. 745 , 595 S.E.2d 588 (2004).