Cole v. the State, 334 Ga. App. 752

Tushanna Cole was indicted in Clayton County on Medicaid fraud (OCGA § 49-4-146.1(b)(1)) and theft by taking (OCGA § 16-8-2), alleging she submitted false Medicaid claims and kept improper payments totaling $297,831.39.
Count 1 alleged a fraudulent scheme from “on or about November 1, 2010, and continuing through on or about December 27, 2013,” and Count 2 alleged theft over the same date range.
Exhibits A and B listed 44 minor patients by initials, dates of birth, and the last four digits of Medicaid ID numbers; the State omitted full names citing sensitive health information.
Cole filed and amended a special demurrer, arguing (1) the exhibits’ use of initials was insufficient to identify persons and (2) the multi-year date range was unreasonably broad because the State knew specific dates.
The trial court overruled the demurrer; Cole obtained interlocutory review and appealed.
The Court of Appeals reversed as to the date-range issue but upheld the sufficiency of patient identification by initials plus DOB and last four Medicaid digits.

Issue	Cole's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Identification of patients by initials in exhibits	Initials alone are insufficient; defendant must know victims/people referenced	Exhibits contained initials plus DOB and last four digits of Medicaid ID; patients are collateral (State is the victim) and sensitive health info justifies omission of full names	Upheld: identification sufficient because DOB and last four digits specifically identified minors and the victims are the State, not the listed patients
Broad date range (38 months)	Range is unreasonably broad; State knew exact dates from electronic claims and must plead specific dates	Alleged single ongoing fraudulent scheme over the period; State could charge scheme over time	Reversed: indictment defective on special demurrer because State presented no evidence it could not identify specific dates and could have pled narrower dates

State v. English, 276 Ga. 343 (establishes that an indictment must contain elements, inform defendant to prepare defense, and protect against double jeopardy)
State v. Meeks, 309 Ga. App. 855 (exception allowing date ranges applies only if State shows it cannot more precisely identify dates)
State v. Thomas, 331 Ga. App. 220 (where electronic records can show exact transaction dates, State should plead specific dates)
Sellers v. State, 263 Ga. App. 144 (initials insufficient where victim identification is required)
Johnson v. State, 233 Ga. App. 450 (scheme alleged over time may be sufficient when specific acts or invoices are expressly identified)