As a criminal defense attorney in Georgia with over 30 years of experience fighting for the rights of the accused, I've seen firsthand how statutory ambiguities can lead to unfair punishments. One of the most powerful tools in a defense lawyer's arsenal is the rule of lenity—a longstanding principle of statutory interpretation that ensures fairness when the law isn't crystal clear. In this post, I'll break down what the rule of lenity means in Georgia, why it matters, and how Georgia courts have applied (or declined to apply) it in real cases. If you're facing charges where multiple statutes could apply to your conduct with different penalties, this rule could mean the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony sentence.
What Is the Rule of Lenity?
At its core, the rule of lenity is a canon of construction for interpreting criminal statutes. It holds that when a defendant's conduct could fall under two or more statutes that impose different levels of punishment, courts must resolve any ambiguity in favor of the defendant. In other words, the lighter penalty wins. This isn't about letting criminals off the hook—it's about ensuring that legislatures, not judges, clearly define crimes and their punishments. As the U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized, penal statutes should be strictly construed, and ambiguities resolved against the government.
In Georgia, the rule applies only when there's genuine ambiguity after considering the statutes' plain language, legislative history, and purpose. It's not a get-out-of-jail-free card; courts won't invoke it if the statutes clearly target different conduct. But when ambiguity exists, it acts as a "tiebreaker" favoring leniency—hence the name.
Georgia's appellate courts have emphasized that the rule promotes fair warning: people shouldn't be punished more harshly than the law unambiguously requires. For example, in Gordon v. State, 334 Ga. App. 633, 634 (780 S.E.2d 376) (2015) , the Court of Appeals explained that the rule "ensures that if and when an ambiguity exists in one or more statutes, such that the law exacts varying degrees of punishment for the same offense, the ambiguity will be resolved in favor of a defendant, who will then receive the lesser punishment." This is binding precedent from the Georgia Court of Appeals.
Similarly, in Sambou v. State, 358 Ga. App. 645, 655 (854 S.E.2d 392) (2021) , the Court of Appeals described the rule as a "sort of junior version of the vagueness doctrine," requiring fair warning about prohibited conduct. Again, this is binding authority.
When Does the Rule Apply? Key Georgia Cases
Georgia courts apply the rule of lenity sparingly, but decisively, when statutes overlap in ways that create punishment disparities. Here are a few verified examples from recent binding decisions:
1. Overlapping False Statement Statutes (Gordon v. State)
In Gordon, the defendant was charged with making a false statement to police under OCGA § 16-10-20 (a felony punishable by 1-5 years) after reporting a fake car theft. But the same conduct could also fall under OCGA § 16-10-26 (false report of a crime, a misdemeanor). The Court of Appeals held that this overlap created ambiguity, triggering the rule of lenity. The felony conviction was vacated, and the defendant was resentenced to the lesser misdemeanor penalty.
Binding Authority: Georgia Court of Appeals decision.
This case shows how the rule can downgrade a felony to a misdemeanor based on statutory overlap.
2. Elder Exploitation vs. Theft by Deception (Austin v. State)
In Austin v. State, 356 Ga. App. 148 (849 S.E.2d 689) (2020), the defendant was convicted of exploiting an elder person under OCGA § 16-5-102(a) (a felony) for using deception to financially exploit a victim over 65. The Court of Appeals ruled that the conduct could also support a charge of theft by deception under OCGA § 16-8-3, enhanced for elder victims under OCGA § 16-8-12(b) but with a potentially lesser penalty. The ambiguity in punishments invoked the rule of lenity, requiring the lesser sentence.
Binding Authority: Georgia Court of Appeals.
This is particularly relevant for financial crimes against vulnerable adults, where multiple statutes might apply.
3. Felony Murder Sentencing (State v. Hanna)
The Georgia Supreme Court addressed the rule in State v. Hanna, 305 Ga. 100, 105 (823 S.E.2d 785) (2019), where the defendant was convicted of felony murder. The Court clarified that the rule applies when one offense is criminalized by two provisions with differing punishments, effectively abrogating the harsher one. However, it declined to apply lenity there because no such abrogation occurred—the statutes were distinct. The Court noted that a general demurrer could be appropriate pre-trial if lenity voids a harsher charge.
Binding Authority: Georgia Supreme Court (highest binding authority in the state).
This decision underscores that lenity can challenge indictments early, before trial.
A Recent Example: Alternative Rape Charges (Gaspar-Mateo v. State)
Just last week, in Gaspar-Mateo v. The State, A25A1202 (Ga. Ct. App. Sept. 12, 2025) , the Court of Appeals discussed lenity in a child rape case. The defendant argued his conduct under OCGA § 16-6-1(a)(2) (rape of a child under 10, life sentence possible) should be treated as statutory rape under OCGA § 16-6-3 (1-20 years). The Court cited Gordon and Sambou but didn't apply lenity—instead, it vacated one conviction as surplusage because the counts were alternative theories of the same offense, not separate crimes. The case was remanded for resentencing on a single count.
Binding Authority: Georgia Court of Appeals.
This illustrates lenity's limits: it doesn't apply if counts are merely duplicative.
Persuasive vs. Binding Authority: A Quick Note
All the cases above are binding on Georgia trial courts under the principle of stare decisis—lower courts must follow them. For comparison, federal cases or out-of-state decisions (like the U.S. Supreme Court's general endorsement of lenity) are persuasive only, meaning judges may consider but aren't required to follow them.
Why This Matters for Your Defense
The rule of lenity isn't automatic; it requires careful analysis of the statutes and indictment. In my practice, I've successfully invoked it to reduce sentences in cases involving overlapping drug offenses, false reports, and elder abuse—saving clients years behind bars. But timing is key: raise it via motion to dismiss, demurrer, or on appeal.
If you're charged with a crime in Georgia and suspect statutory ambiguity, don't wait. Contact my office today for a free consultation. At George C. Creal, Jr., P.C., we fight aggressively to ensure the law is applied fairly.
George C. Creal, Jr., P.C.
480 John Wesley Dobbs Ave. NE, Unit 190
Atlanta, GA 30312
(404) 333-0706
www.georgecreal.com
This post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult an attorney for your specific situation.