Blanton v. State
324 Ga. App. 610
Ga. Ct. App.2013Background
- Dean Blanton was indicted (three successive indictments) for multiple counts of incest and child molestation involving two daughters; date ranges in the indictments varied and were the central procedural issue.
- First indictment (Oct 2010) alleged broad date ranges (May 1, 2008–Apr 30, 2010 and May 1, 2008–Dec 13, 2009); State later re-indicted to narrow dates (Apr 2011) and then modified wording to add “between” (Apr 27, 2012).
- Blanton filed special demurrers challenging the sufficiency of date ranges and a plea of former jeopardy/ motion to dismiss based on OCGA § 17-7-53.1 (claiming two prior indictments barred further prosecution).
- The trial court denied the former jeopardy plea because prior actions included a State-entered nolle prosequi (not a defendant- or court-initiated quashing), and denied the special demurrers after the State presented testimony from the investigating detective that victims could not identify specific dates and the offenses occurred repeatedly across the alleged ranges.
- The court quashed the second indictment and entered nolle prosequi as to the first; the court and appellate panel held nolle prosequi entries do not trigger the statutory bar in OCGA § 17-7-53.1 when quashings were not defendant- or court-initiated.
- On the merits of the demurrers, the court applied precedents allowing date ranges where the State shows inability to specify exact dates; it found the State met that burden given repetitive offenses and victims’ inability to recall exact dates.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OCGA § 17-7-53.1 bars prosecution after two prior indictments | Blanton: two prior indictments existed, so prosecution on third is barred | State: first was disposed by nolle prosequi (State-initiated), second later quashed; statute bars only when two prior indictments were quashed by defendant or court | Court: statute does not apply because prior disposition included nolle prosequi; no bar to prosecution |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by permitting State to enter nolle prosequi over defendant’s objection | Blanton: entry of nolle prosequi improperly avoided statutory bar and was an abuse | State: under OCGA § 17-8-3 the State may seek nolle prosequi with court approval prior to jury submission; trial court may choose nolle to avoid § 17-7-53.1 | Court: no abuse; trial court acted within discretion and precedent permits nolle prosequi |
| Whether indictment counts are defective for failing to state specific dates (incest counts) | Blanton: ranges are unreasonably broad; State could have narrowed to discrete short periods | State: detective testimony shows victim reported ~50 incidents across the two-year span and could not fix dates despite investigation | Court: special demurrer denied; State showed it could not reasonably narrow dates for incest counts |
| Whether child-molestation counts are defective because victim may have turned 16 within range | Blanton: possible birthday within range could render some acts not punishable under OCGA § 16-6-4(a)(1) | State: record lacks evidence of victim’s birthdate; victim and defense previously described her as 14–15 during the period | Court: complaint not preserved and record doesn’t show birthdate; special demurrer denied for counts 3–5 |
Key Cases Cited
- Redding v. State, 205 Ga. App. 613 (421 SE2d 10) (establishes that nolle prosequi entries do not trigger OCGA § 17-7-53.1 bar when quashings were not defendant- or court-initiated)
- State v. Lejeune, 276 Ga. 179 (576 SE2d 888) (trial court may permit nolle prosequi and statute does not include State-initiated actions in § 17-7-53.1 bar analysis)
- Layman v. State, 280 Ga. 794 (631 SE2d 107) (State may obtain nolle prosequi without defendant’s consent pre-jury; court may use nolle to avoid § 17-7-53.1 application)
- Mosby v. State, 319 Ga. App. 642 (738 SE2d 98) (State must present evidence, not mere argument, to show it cannot fix specific dates; ranges must not be unreasonably broad)
- Howard v. State, 281 Ga. App. 797 (637 SE2d 448) (if State’s own evidence shows specific dates exist, special demurrer should be granted)
- Arnold v. State, 305 Ga. App. 45 (699 SE2d 77) (upholding denial of special demurrer where evidence showed frequent molestation across alleged period and inability to recall specific dates)