Court Reverses Denial of Special Demurrer Due to Overbroad Date Range in Indictment

In Villacorta-Padilla v. State, the Georgia Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s special demurrer, finding that the State could have narrowed the date range alleged with respect to three of the counts in the indictment.

Background

In a four count indictment, the defendant was charged with various sexual offenses allegedly committed against his stepdaughter. The indictment alleged two different date ranges for the offenses.

In Count 1, it alleged that the offense of rape was committed between April 1, 2023 and April 30, 2023.

In Counts 2, 3, and 4, it alleged that the offenses of aggravated sexual battery, child molestation, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor were committed between June 1, 2022 and April 30, 2023.

The defendant filed a special demurrer to the indictment contending that the range of dates could be more particularly narrowed by the State.

At the hearing on the demurrer, the State called the forensic interviewer who interviewed the stepdaughter. The interviewer testified that while the child was not able to give exact dates for the offenses, she remembered that the abuse began around the end of June 2022. She stated that the abuse ended in April 2023 when she was raped by the defendant.

The trial court overruled the demurrer, finding that the range of dates in the indictment could not have reasonably been narrowed any further.

The trial court signed a certificate of immediate review which allowed the defendant to file an interlocutory appeal with the Court of Appeals.

Court of Appeals’ Reversal

The appeals court granted the interlocutory appeal and reversed the trial court with respect to Counts 2, 3, and 4.

At the outset, the Court noted the general principle that an indictment must be perfect in both form and substance or otherwise it is subject to a special demurrer.

Georgia law requires an indictment to allege a specific date that the offenses were committed unless the State can show that the evidence makes it unable to do so. In that event, the State is permitted to allege that the offense was committed between two dates.

Moreover, the range of dates that the State alleges must not be unreasonably broad. In other words, the date range must be made as narrow as the evidence allows for. If a special demurrer is filed and the trial court finds that the State is capable of further narrowing the dates, the demurrer must be sustained.

The Court of Appeals pointed out that the testimony from the forensic interviewer established that the stepdaughter stated that the sexual abuse began “around the back half of June of 2022.” The interviewer asked the girl if she remembered if the abuse started at “the beginning or end of the month” and she said, “closer to the end.”

The Court concluded that any date between June 1, 2022 and June 15, 2022 could not reasonably be considered “the end of June.” Therefore, the Court held that requiring the State to narrow the date range in Counts 2, 3, and 4 to remove this timeframe was not unreasonable or arbitrary.

As a result, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s ruling and sustained the demurrer with regards to these counts. The case will be remanded back to the trial court where it will likely be reindicted with a more narrow range of dates.

The defendant also argued on appeal that the State was required to call either the lead investigator in the case or the witness who testified before the grand jury in order to meet its evidentiary burden at the hearing on the special demurrer.

The Court rejected this argument, holding that although the State is required to present “some evidence” at the hearing, there is no requirement as to what particular witness or evidence the State must present.