---
title: Ga. Const. Art. I, Sec. I, Para. XII. Right to the courts.
collection: code
id: ga-const:art-i-sec-i-para-xii
cite_as: Ga. Const. Art. I, Sec. I, Para. XII
canonical_url: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/ga/art-i-sec-i-para-xii
md_url: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/ga/art-i-sec-i-para-xii.md
text_url: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/ga/art-i-sec-i-para-xii/text
source_url: https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/document/docs/default-source/joint-features-document-library/2ga-const-(v2)-2016-pdf.pdf?sfvrsn=f5de823e_0#page=211
date: 2016
status: active
corpus_version: 2025-supplement-89aa39ab3c68
license: CC0-1.0
publisher: Georgia Commons, an independent project of Georgia Civic Data. Not the State of Georgia. Not legal advice.
up: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/ga/index.md
previous: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/ga/art-i-sec-i-para-xi.md
next: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/ga/art-i-sec-i-para-xiii.md
index: https://georgiacommons.org/code/index.md
omitted: notes
omitted_chars: 53087
omitted_url: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/ga/art-i-sec-i-para-xii.md?notes=all&start=11711
version: the only printed version
in_force: true
current_through: Including Acts of the 2025 Regular Session of the General Assembly
heading_path: CONSTITUTION OF THE / BILL OF RIGHTS / RIGHTS OF PERSONS
---

# Ga. Const. Art. I, Sec. I, Para. XII. Right to the courts.

A constitution provision shown as in force is in force as printed in the volume. A court decision can make a printed provision unenforceable without changing the volume, and the volume does not record that.

No person shall be deprived of the right to prosecute or defend, either in person or by an attorney, that person’s own cause in any of the courts of this state.

## Cross References

Rights of citizens generally, § 1-2-6. Indigent’s access to courts, §§ 9-2-63 and 17-12-31. Court review of garnishment proceedings, § 18-4-45. Court review of administrative decisions, § 50-13-19.

## Law Reviews

For article surveying Georgia cases in the area of criminal law from June, 1979 through May, 1980, see 32 Mercer L. Rev. 35 (1980). For article surveying developments in Georgia criminal law from mid-1980 through mid-1981, see 33 Mercer L. Rev. 95 (1981). For article, ‘‘The Georgia Bill of Rights: Dead or Alive?,’’ see 34 Emory L.J. 341 (1985). For annual survey of criminal law, see 38 Mercer L. Rev. 129 (1986).

For note, ‘‘Deadbeat Dads: Undeserving of the Right to Inherit from Their Illegitimate Children and Undeserving of Equal Protection,’’ see 34 Ga. L. Rev. 1773 (2000).

For comment, ‘‘Inappropriate Forum or Inappropriate Law? A Choice of Law Solution to the Jurisdictional Standoff Between the United States and Latin America,’’ see 60 Emory L.J. 1437 (2011).

## 1976 Constitution.

Art. I, Sec. I, Para. IX.

## Lawsuits and Workers’ Compensation Cases.

Every party to a lawsuit or a workers’ compensation proceeding must be afforded the opportunity to be heard and to present a claim or defense, i.e., to have that party’s day in court. Hart v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 165 Ga. App. 681, 302 S.E.2d 701 (1983).

Reviewability of constitutionality

## Claim.

Because the Court of Appeals of Georgia was bound by the Supreme Court of Georgia’s order transferring a personal injury plaintiff’s appeal and expressly held that the trial court did not rule on whether O.C.G.A. § 9-11-68(d) was constitutional, the Court of Appeals declined to consider the defendants’ arguments that the statute was constitutional. Buchan v. Hobby, 288 Ga. App. 478, 654 S.E.2d 444 (2007).

This paragraph does not guarantee to citizen of this state any particular

## Form or Method of State Procedure.

Its requirements are satisfied if the citizen has reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard, and to present a claim or defense, due regard being had to the nature of the proceeding and the character of the rights which may be affected by it. Zorn v. Walker, 206 Ga. 181, 56 S.E.2d 511 (1949); State v. Sanks, 225 Ga. 88, 166 S.E.2d 19 (1969), appeal dismissed, 401 U.S. 144, 91 S. Ct. 593, 27 L. Ed. 2d 741 (1971).

The constitutional provision set forth in this paragraph is plainly subject to the inherent power of the court to prescribe the manner in which the business of the court shall be conducted and to preserve the order and decorum of the trial to the furtherance of justice; this discretion of the trial court in assuming the general superintendence and control of the litigation before it is a point of extreme delicacy with which the Court of Appeals is reluctant to interfere, and interference will not be had unless there appears in the case General Consideration (Cont’d) something to demand imperatively the corrective interposition of the Court of Appeals. Davis v. Barnes, 158 Ga. App. 89, 279 S.E.2d 330 (1981).

No requirement that prosecutor

## Make Evidence Available Before Trial.

— There is no statute or rule of procedure of force in this state which requires a solicitor general (now district attorney) or other prosecuting officer to make evidence, documentary or otherwise, available to the accused or the accused’s counsel before trial. Blevins v. State, 220 Ga. 720, 141 S.E.2d 426 (1965).

Argument of counsel to jury is a stage of trial. Pierce v. State, 47 Ga. App. 830, 171 S.E. 731 (1933).

Absence of counsel without consent of court will not prevent reception of verdict. Nowell v. State, 18 Ga. App. 143, 88 S.E. 909 (1916).

## Argument of Counsel May Be Limited.

Ruling of court limiting argument by counsel was not contrary to the constitutional rights of the defendant. Lindsay v. State, 138 Ga. 818, 76 S.E. 369 (1912).

Inquiry into counsel’s failure to

## Challenge Jury Arrays Required.

When a defendant claimed ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel’s failure to pursue the defendant’s requests to challenge the arrays of the grand and traverse juries and to secure the presence of certain defense witnesses, the trial court’s summary overruling of the defendant’s motions for change of counsel without a hearing or any further inquiry was error. Heard v. State, 173 Ga. App. 543, 327 S.E.2d 767 (1985).

No abuse of discretion by court in refusing extension of time for further argument after counsel consumed the hour allowed. Port Wentworth Term. Corp. v. Leavitt, 28 Ga. App. 82, 110 S.E. 686 (1922).

Preclusion of right of nonresident

## Contractor to Bring Action for Payment on Contract Not Unconstitutional.

O.C.G.A. T. 48, C. 13, Art. 2 does not abridge a litigant’s right to prosecute a cause of action in this state, as the same attack might lie logically against innumerable provisions of law which define the rights of litigants. Gorrell v. Fowler, 248 Ga. 801, 286 S.E.2d 13 (1982).

Right to be present at civil trial. — In a medical malpractice case in which the trial judge received and answered a note from the jury without advising the parties or counsel, the plaintiffs were entitled to a new trial because the plaintiffs substantial rights to be present under due process and Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Para. XII, had been infringed. Plaintiffs were unable to demonstrate harm because the note was destroyed and the trial judge and jurors disagreed on the note’s contents, preventing supplementing the record under O.C.G.A. § 5-6-41. Phillips v. Harmon, 297 Ga. 386, 774 S.E.2d 596 (2015).

## Right to Testify Not Violated.

Defendant’s constitutional right to testify in the defendant’s own behalf had not been violated. The trial court established that the defendant knew that the defendant had the right to testify if the defendant wanted to but elected not to after consulting with defense counsel. Branford v. State, 299 Ga. App. 890, 685 S.E.2d 731 (2009).

## Recovery of Attorney’s Fees.

Trial court erred in finding that the Tort Reform Act of 2005, O.C.G.A. § 9-11-68, violated Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Para. XII, since it permitted the recovery of attorney’s fees absent the prerequisite showings of either O.C.G.A. § 9-15-14 or O.C.G.A. § 13-6-11, because there was no constitutional requirement that attorney’s fees be awarded only pursuant to § 9-15-14 or § 13-6-11; in Georgia, attorney’s fees are recoverable when authorized by some statutory provision or by contract, and § 9-11-68, is such a statutory provision authorizing the recovery of attorney’s fees under specific circumstances. Smith v. Baptiste, 287 Ga. 23, 694 S.E.2d 83 (2010).

Presentation of legitimate defense

## Precludes Awarding Attorney’s Fees.

— Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Para. XII right to defend one’s own cause in court is a privilege granted to the defendant as well as the plaintiff; after a motorist being sued in a personal injury case testified that the rear-end collision at issue was caused when the injured person’s car swerved suddenly into the motorist’s lane, the injured person’s witness, the driver of the other car, was a long-time friend of the injured person and that witness’s testimony could have been self-serving, the motorist’s deposition was consistent with the trial testimony, and the only substantial variation in the motorist’s versions of events was between the police report, of which the officer had no independent recollection, and the motorist’s testimony, there was a bona fide dispute as to liability and a reasonable defense, which precluded the award of attorney fees and expenses under O.C.G.A. § 13-6-11. Anderson v. Cayes, 278 Ga. App. 592, 630 S.E.2d 441 (2006).

## Right to Counsel at Restitution Hearing.

Trial court erred in refusing to allow defendant’s counsel, who was present in the defendant’s absence at the restitution hearing, to cross-examine the victim, produce evidence, or present any argument on the defendant’s behalf because a criminal defendant is entitled to representation by counsel at all critical stages of the proceeding, including sentencing, which included any hearing on restitution. Gibson v. State, 319 Ga. App. 627, 737 S.E.2d 728 (2013).

New trial warranted due to ex parte

## Communication with Jury.

In a medical malpractice case, the plaintiffs were entitled to a new trial because the communication between the court and the jury was not disclosed to the plaintiffs or plaintiffs’ counsel until after the verdict, the note and response were not made a part of the record, recollections differed as to the nature and timing of the communication, and it was impossible for the appellate court to determine if a defense verdict would have been demanded regardless of the effect of the communication on the jury. Phillips v. Harmon, 328 Ga. App. 686, 760 S.E.2d 235 (2014), aff’d in part and rev’d on other grounds, 297 Ga. 386, 774 S.E.2d 596 (2015), vacated on other grounds, 335 Ga. App. 450, 780 S.E.2d 914 (2015).

Cited in Boone v. Lord, 38 Ga. App. 397, 144 S.E. 123 (1928); Felker v. Still, 176 Ga. 735, 169 S.E. 15 (1933); Turner v. State, 176 Ga. 823, 169 S.E. 21 (1933); Adair v. Metropolitan Cas. Co., 48 Ga. App. 88, 171 S.E. 853 (1933); Simmons v. Newton, 178 Ga. 806, 174 S.E. 703 (1934); Johnson v. Walls, 185 Ga. 177, 194 S.E. 380 (1937); Mayor of Savannah v. Fawcett, 186 Ga. 132, 197 S.E. 253 (1938); Moyers v. State, 186 Ga. 446, 197 S.E. 846 (1938); West v. Haas, 191 Ga. 569, 13 S.E.2d 376 (1941); Morton v. Henderson, 123 F.2d 48 (5th Cir. 1941); White v. State, 196 Ga. 847, 27 S.E.2d 695 (1943); Steward v. Peerless Furn. Co., 70 Ga. App. 236, 28 S.E.2d 396 (1943); Thomas v. Dumas, 207 Ga. 161, 60 S.E.2d 356 (1950); Hilliard v. State, 209 Ga. 497, 74 S.E.2d 65 (1953); Hilliard v. State, 87 Ga. App. 769, 75 S.E.2d 173 (1953); Porch v. Foster, 209 Ga. 697, 75 S.E.2d 420 (1953); Garland v. Tanksley, 99 Ga. App. 201, 107 S.E.2d 866 (1959); Cadle v. State, 101 Ga. App. 175, 113 S.E.2d 180 (1960); Ferguson v. State, 219 Ga. 33, 131 S.E.2d 538 (1963); Bryan v. State, 224 Ga. 389, 162 S.E.2d 349 (1968); Sams v. Olah, 225 Ga. 497, 169 S.E.2d 790 (1969); J. Bain, Inc. v. Poulos, 121 Ga. App. 647, 175 S.E.2d 86 (1970); Bush v. Morris, 123 Ga. App. 497, 181 S.E.2d 503 (1971); Ward v. Smith, 228 Ga. 137, 184 S.E.2d 592 (1971); Blocker v. Blackburn, 228 Ga. 285, 185 S.E.2d 56 (1971); Butts v. Davis, 126 Ga. App. 311, 190 S.E.2d 595 (1972); Doran v. Home Mart Bldg. Ctrs., Inc., 233 Ga. 705, 213 S.E.2d 825 (1975); Revels v. Tift County, 235 Ga. 333, 219 S.E.2d 445 (1975); Tucker Door & Trim Corp. v. Fifteenth St. Co., 235 Ga. 727, 221 S.E.2d 433 (1975); Bradley v. Tenneco Oil Co., 146 Ga. App. 161, 245 S.E.2d 862 (1978); Spencer v. Hopper, 243 Ga. 532, 255 S.E.2d 1 (1979); Weeks v. State, 152 Ga. App. 629, 263 S.E.2d 513 (1979); Brown v. Department of Human Resources, 157 Ga. App. 106, 276 S.E.2d 155 (1981); Mullins v. Lavoie, 249 Ga. 411, 290 S.E.2d 472 (1982); Banks v. Borg-Warner Acceptance Corp., 168 Ga. App. 46, 308 S.E.2d 54 (1983); Dickerson v. State, 180 Ga. App. 852, 350 S.E.2d 835 (1986); Hanifa v. State, 269 Ga. 797, 505 S.E.2d 731 (1998); Colwell v. State, 273 Ga. 634, 544 S.E.2d 120 (2001); Crane v. State Farm Ins. Co., 278 Ga. App. 655, 629 S.E.2d 424 (2006); Wheatley v. Moe’s Southwest Grill, LLC, 580 F. Supp. 2d 1324 (N.D. Ga. 2008); DeLong v. State, 310 Ga. App. 518, 714 S.E.2d 98 (2011); Deal v. Coleman, 294 Ga. 170, 751 S.E.2d 337 (2013).

Self-Representation tended to guarantee right of self-representation in courts of this state. Dobbins v. Dobbins, 234 Ga. 347, 216 S.E.2d 102 (1975).

Every citizen has a constitutional


> The printed notes continue for 53,087 more characters, not shown here. Continue at https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/ga/art-i-sec-i-para-xii.md?notes=all&start=11711