Track

Status

Governing provision

No limitation, for child victims, since 2012 — § 17-3-2.1(b): for crimes committed on and after 1 July 2012, where the victim of trafficking a person for sexual servitude (§ 16-5-46), cruelty to children in the first degree (§ 16-5-70), rape (§ 16-6-1), aggravated sodomy (§ 16-6-2), child molestation or aggravated child molestation (§ 16-6-4), enticing a child for indecent purposes (§ 16-6-5) or incest (§ 16-6-22) “is under 16 years of age on the date of the violation and the violation is not subject to punishment as provided in paragraph (2) of subsection (b) of Code Section 16-6-4, paragraph (2) of subsection (d) of Code Section 16-6-4, or subsection (c) of Code Section 16-6-5, a prosecution may be commenced at any time.” 

A tolling rule for the twenty years before that — § 17-3-2.1(a): for crimes committed between 1 July 1992 and 30 June 2012, where the victim of cruelty to children, rape, sodomy or aggravated sodomy, statutory rape, child molestation or aggravated child molestation, enticing a child for indecent purposes, or incest was under 16, the period “shall not begin to run until the victim has reached the age of 16 or the violation is reported to a law enforcement agency, prosecuting attorney, or other governmental agency, whichever occurs earlier.” That is a tolling rule, not an elimination — the four- or seven-year period then runs from age 16. 

The periods that otherwise apply — § 17-3-1(a): murder, at any time. § 17-3-1(b): other crimes punishable by death or life imprisonment, seven years; but forcible rape, fifteen years. § 17-3-1(c): other felonies, four years — “provided that prosecution for felonies committed against victims who are at the time of the commission of the offense under the age of 18 years shall be commenced within seven years after the commission of the crime.” § 17-3-1(e): misdemeanors, two years. 

DNA route — § 17-3-1(d): prosecution may be commenced at any time where DNA evidence is used to establish the identity of the accused, for armed robbery, kidnapping, rape, aggravated child molestation, aggravated sodomy and aggravated sexual battery, provided a sufficient portion of the physical evidence tested is preserved and available for testing by the accused. If the DNA does not establish identity, the ordinary periods in (b) and (c) apply. 

Why “partly removed”: the elimination is bounded three ways. It applies only to crimes committed on or after 1 July 2012; only where the victim was under 16, not under 18; and only to the seven listed offenses, with the misdemeanor-punishment carve-outs excluded. A victim who was 16 or 17, or whose abuse predates July 2012, or who suffered sexual battery under § 16-6-22.1 rather than one of the listed offenses, is back on § 17-3-1 — seven years from the commission of the crime for a felony against a child, running from the act itself and not from any age or discovery.

Ga. Code Ann. § 17-3-1 — Justia (2024 Code of Georgia) 

Ga. Code Ann. § 17-3-2.1 — Justia (2025 Code of Georgia)

Abuse before 1 July 2015 — § 9-3-33.1(a)(2): “Notwithstanding Code Section 9-3-33 and except as provided in subsection (d) of this Code section as it existed on June 30, 2017, any civil action for recovery of damages suffered as a result of childhood sexual abuse committed before July 1, 2015, shall be commenced on or before the date the plaintiff attains the age of 23 years.” The cross-reference to a repealed subsection (d) is the surviving trace of the revival window — see section 3. 

Abuse on or after 1 July 2015 — § 9-3-33.1(b)(2)(A): the action shall be commenced “(i) On or before the date the plaintiff attains the age of 23 years; or (ii) Within two years from the date that the plaintiff knew or had reason to know of such abuse and that such abuse resulted in injury to the plaintiff as established by competent medical or psychological evidence.” 

A pre-trial hearing on discovery — § 9-3-33.1(b)(2)(B): where the action is filed after the plaintiff turns 23 but within two years of discovery, “the court shall determine from admissible evidence in a pretrial finding when the discovery of the alleged childhood sexual abuse occurred”, and that finding must be made within six months of filing. 

Two different standards for institutions — § 9-3-33.1(c)(2): where the claim is brought on the age-23 route, damages against an entity that owed a duty of care, or that had control over the activity, are awarded “only if by a preponderance of the evidence there is a finding of negligence on the part of such entity”. § 9-3-33.1(c)(3): where the claim is brought on the discovery route, damages against that entity are awarded only on a finding “that there was gross negligence on the part of such entity, that the entity knew or should have known of the alleged conduct giving rise to the civil action and such entity failed to take remedial action.” 

What counts as childhood sexual abuse — § 9-3-33.1(b)(1) lists trafficking for sexual servitude (§ 16-5-46), rape (§ 16-6-1), statutory rape where the defendant was 21 or older (§ 16-6-3), aggravated sodomy (§ 16-6-2), child molestation and aggravated child molestation (§ 16-6-4), enticing a child (§ 16-6-5), incest (§ 16-6-22), aggravated sexual battery (§ 16-6-22.2) and the offenses in Part 2 of Article 3 of Chapter 12 of Title 16. The pre-2015 definition in (a)(1) is wider in some respects — it includes sodomy, pandering, solicitation of sodomy and sexual battery — and narrower in others. 

The age-23 deadline is the one to hold on to: it is among the shortest in the country for the primary limb, and it is measured from the plaintiff’s birthday rather than from discovery. The discovery limb added in 2015 softens that, but at a price — it moves the institutional defendant from a negligence standard to gross negligence plus actual or constructive knowledge plus failure to act. In Georgia a survivor who comes forward late does not simply file later; they face a materially harder case against the institution.

Ga. Code Ann. § 9-3-33.1 — Justia (2024 Code of Georgia)

The provision — former § 9-3-33.1(d): “Plaintiffs of any age who were time barred from filing a civil action for injuries resulting from childhood sexual abuse due to the expiration of the statute of limitations in effect on June 30, 2015, shall be permitted to file such actions against the individual alleged to have committed such abuse before July 1, 2017.” 

Its most important limit — the window ran against “the individual alleged to have committed such abuse” and no one else. Claims against schools, churches, clubs and other entities were outside it entirely. Georgia is therefore not comparable to the states whose windows reached institutions, and the difference should not be lost by scoring it simply as “closed”. 

Its other limits — the window did not apply to a claim already litigated to finality on the merits (expiry of a limitation period alone not counting as such a finality), nor where the plaintiff had entered a written settlement agreement while represented by an attorney. 

How this entry was recovered, because the method matters for the rest of the dataset: the repealed subsection leaves a footprint in the surviving text. Section 9-3-33.1(a)(2) still reads “except as provided in subsection (d) of this Code section as it existed on June 30, 2017”. That cross-reference is what tells you a subsection (d) existed and when it ended, and the 2016 edition of the Code carries its text. The same technique recovered the District of Columbia’s window. It is worth applying to every jurisdiction the tracker records as “window closed” without dates.

Ga. Code Ann. § 9-3-33.1 (2016 Georgia Code — text of former subsection (d)) — Justia 

Ga. Code Ann. § 9-3-33.1 (current) — Justia (2024 Code of Georgia)

no Georgia row.