Legal Opinion · Dissent

Stockwell v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided December 5, 1990No. A90A1311Published

1DissentSognier, Judge

I respectfully dissent. I agree with appellant that the judgment should be reversed because the State did not prove an essential element of the crime, compliance with the statutory notice requirement.

OCGA § 16-7-21 (b) (2) provides that one “commits the offense of criminal trespass when he knowingly and without authority . . . [e]nters upon the land or premises of another person . . . after receiving, prior to such entry, notice from the owner [or] rightful occupant . . . that such entry is forbidden.” (Emphasis supplied.) Inherent in the statutory notice requirement, which is an essential…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Williamson v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1975
  2. Rayburn v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1983
  3. Wingfield v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1989

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API