King v. State, 300 Ga. 180

Background

Michael B. King, a Clayton County attorney and school-board member, was charged in 2010 under Clayton County Code §62-202(a) for outside storage of rubbish; that 2010 charge was dismissed by nolle prosequi.
A new citation for the same ordinance was served circa November 12, 2014; a formal accusation was filed January 14, 2015, and King demanded a jury trial.
King moved to dismiss raising double jeopardy, speedy-trial, vagueness, and other defenses; the trial court denied the motion and incorporated on-the-record rulings into a written order.
At trial King was convicted; he raised multiple appellate enumerations arguing double jeopardy, failure to give requested jury charges, statutory notice and affidavit defects, subpoenas of prosecutorial and police witnesses, conditions on supersedeas bond, and evidentiary/search-warrant issues.
The Court of Appeals transferred the matter to the Georgia Supreme Court, which affirmed the conviction on multiple grounds and rejected King’s claims.

Issues

Issue	King’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Double jeopardy / prior nolle prosequi	2015 prosecution barred because he was "acquitted"/placed in jeopardy in 2010	2010 matter was dismissed by nolle prosequi before jeopardy attached; 2015 charge is distinct	No double jeopardy; nolle prosequi does not equate to acquittal absent prior attachment of jeopardy; conviction affirmed
Speedy-trial (2010 demand)	Entitled to acquittal because not tried within two terms after demand	King waived speedy trial in 2010; 2015 charge not plainly same transaction	Denied — waiver and lack of showing that 2015 charge was same event
Vagueness of ordinance and OCGA §17-7-71(a) affidavit requirement	Ordinance and affidavit statute are unconstitutionally vague; asked for jury instructions on solicitor’s duty	Court ruled motions denied; affidavit required only when a warrant is sought	Denied; appellant failed to preserve transcript for review and instruction on affidavit was inapplicable absent warrant
Five-day notice under §62-202(e) / directed verdict	Entitled to five days’ notice and directed verdict because State did not prove notice	Subsection applies to county entry and remediation; no evidence county entered property to abate	Denied — no proof county entered property to abate, so five-day-notice defense inapplicable
Subpoenas for prosecutor and police chief	Sought to compel prosecutor and chief to testify about nolle prosequi and other matters	No compelling need; subpoenas not properly served (police chief)	Quashed/denied — prosecutorial witness not required absent compelling need; service defects fatal for chief subpoena
Evidence/photos taken without warrant	Evidence outside carport should be suppressed as warrantless search	Items were in plain view outside the home; no reasonable expectation of privacy	Denied — plain-view doctrine applies; no suppression required

Key Cases Cited

Alexander v. State, 192 Ga. App. 211 (nolle prosequi does not adjudicate guilt or innocence absent attachment of jeopardy)
Hunter v. State, 104 Ga. App. 576 (same principle regarding nolle prosequi and jeopardy)
State v. Smith, 185 Ga. App. 694 (definition of when jeopardy attaches)
Bradford v. State, 299 Ga. 880 (plain-error standard for unpreserved jury-charge claims)
Ware v. State, 279 Ga. 17 (appellant bears burden to preserve record/transcript for appellate review)
United States v. Roberson, 897 F.2d 1092 (prosecutor-as-witness standards; compelling need requirement)
Goodwin v. State, 320 Ga. App. 224 (discussing subpoenaing prosecutors as witnesses)
Edenfield v. State, 147 Ga. App. 502 (service requirements for subpoenas)
Dudley v. State, 230 Ga. App. 339 (permitting reasonable conditions on misdemeanor bond)
Harvey v. State, 296 Ga. 823 (appellate jurisdiction and effect of frivolous/dilatory appeals)
Geiger v. State, 295 Ga. 190 (no legitimate expectation of privacy for items exposed to public view)
State v. Tye, 276 Ga. 559 (plain-view doctrine in suppression context)