For once, the good guys won one.
In two recent cases, the District Attorney prosecuted offenders and convicted them of both the serious underlying crimes AND the fleeing crimes.
Identity theft is hard to catch and hard to prove. The Georgia Legislature, recognizing that identity theft constituted a threat to the financial security of Georgians, enacted a venue statute that made prosecution of the identity theft crimes a little easier by allowing the State to prosecute the case where the victim resides or where the actual transaction took place. This was a wonderful statute for victims as it allowed prosecution of the crime in the victim’s home county instead of having the victim chase the offender all over Georgia. Think about it for a moment. A person who stole your identity could reside in North Georgia, or California, or Nigeria, or Mongolia. If they stole your financial identity and used it to purchase goods elsewhere, would it be fair to the victim or even prosecutable if the crime could only be prosecuted where the transaction actually occurred.
However, all good intentions are punished, and so was this one. A fellow by the name of Willie Maze took a wallet belonging to Owana Lloyd, who resided in Clayton County. Mr. Maze accessed Mr. Lloyd’s credit history in DeKalb County. The fine folks in the DA’s office in Clayton County prosecuted Mr. Mayze in Clayton County, pursuant to the code section discussed above.See Mayze.pdf (Click here to see statute).
Mayze appealed, claiming that he could only be prosecuted in DeKalb County as that is where he illegally accessed Mr. Lloyd’s financial information. The Georgia Supreme Court held, in a 7-0 vote, that Mayze was right and that the Legislature had no business telling the citizens of Georgia were venue would rest. Upon hearing that decision, EVERY SINGLE DISTRICT ATTORNEY and the ATTORNEY GENERAL appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court to rethink what they had done. The case was brilliantly argued, on a Motion For Reconsideration, by the Attorney General’s Office. On Monday, November 21, 2005, the Supreme Court reconsidered their decision and held, in a 4-3 vote, that the Legislature does have the ability to determine venue in financial crimes. (As do most other states!)
So, Georgia’s venue for financial identity crimes remains intact and Mr. Mayze can be prosecuted in Clayton County.
The decision reads as:
16-9-125.
The General Assembly finds that identity fraud involves the use of identifying information which is uniquely personal to the consumer or business victim of that identity fraud and which information is considered to be in the lawful possession of the consumer or business victim wherever the consumer or business victim currently resides or is found. Accordingly, the fraudulent use of that information involves the fraudulent use of information that is, for the purposes of this article, found within the county where the consumer or business victim of the identity fraud resides or is found. Accordingly, in a proceeding under this article, the crime will be considered to have been committed in any county where the person whose means of identification or financial information was appropriated resides or is found, or in any county in which any other part of the offense took place, regardless of whether the defendant was ever actually in such county
The General Assembly finds that identity fraud involves the use of identifying information which is uniquely personal to the consumer or business victim of that identity fraud and which information is considered to be in the lawful possession of the consumer or business victim wherever the consumer or business victim currently resides or is found. Accordingly, the fraudulent use of that information involves the fraudulent use of information that is, for the purposes of this article, found within the county where the consumer or business victim of the identity fraud resides or is found. Accordingly, in a proceeding under this article, the crime will be considered to have been committed in any county where the person whose means of identification or financial information was appropriated resides or is found, or in any county in which any other part of the offense took place, regardless of whether the defendant was ever actually in such county
Newer Content:
- 03/30/2006 - Grand Jury Changes in the Future?
- 03/30/2006 - Gangs in Houston County
- 03/30/2006 - Fresh Pursuit
- 03/30/2006 - Fleeing or Attempting to Elude
- 03/30/2006 - Found Money, or Thievery?
Older Content:
- 03/30/2006 - Equal Strikes
- 03/30/2006 - Drug Forfeiture Laws Work For You!
- 03/30/2006 - Drive Out Tags
- 03/30/2006 - Don't Legalize Marijuana
- 03/30/2006 - Domestic Violence in the Workplace