Difference between revisions of "Child endangering Cobb County judge prepares for senior judgeship"

no edit summary
(username removed)
(username removed)
Line 21: Line 21:
</blockquote>
</blockquote>


As is apparent, the use of the term “subsection” restricted (c)(3) to apply only to subsection (c) of O.C.G.A. § 16-6-5.1. Had the term “Code section” been used in place of “subsection,” the former Marietta High School teacher, Mr. Christopher King, would have undoubtedly been found guilty in that case. The Georgia Legislature re-wrote [https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-6/16-6-5-1/ O.C.G.A. § 16-6-5.1 the following year (2010)] closing the loophole by adding subsection (e), which reads: “Consent of the victim shall not be a defense to a prosecution under this Code section.”
As is apparent, the use of the term “subsection” restricted (c)(3) to apply only to subsection (c) of [https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-6/16-6-5-1/ O.C.G.A. § 16-6-5.1]. Had the term “Code section” been used in place of “subsection,” the former Marietta High School teacher, Mr. Christopher King, would have undoubtedly been found guilty in that case. The Georgia Legislature re-wrote [https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-6/16-6-5-1/ O.C.G.A. § 16-6-5.1 the following year (2010)] closing the loophole by adding subsection (e), which reads: “Consent of the victim shall not be a defense to a prosecution under this Code section.”
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
(username removed)