Lee v. State
289 Ga. 95
| Ga. | 2011Background
- State filed accusations against Lee for prostitution and keeping a place of prostitution (June 30, 2006).
- Amended accusations later alleged pimping and keeping a place of prostitution (June 30–July 11, 2006).
- Lee raised OCGA § 17-3-1(d) statute of limitations defense before trial; court ruled limitations not expired.
- Trial court prevented Lee from arguing to the jury that amended filings were outside the two-year window.
- Jury convicted on amended charges; trial court denied motions for arrest of judgment and new trial.
- Court of Appeals reversed pimping conviction but affirmed keeping a place of prostitution; Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the amendment to the accusation after the statute of limitations expired broadened the original charge | Lee contends amendment broadens beyond original charge. | State argues amendment is the proper vehicle to plead within limitations. | Amendment broadened pimping; judgment reversed on pimping. |
| Whether the trial court properly instructed on statute of limitations and allowed jury consideration of dates | Lee should have been allowed to argue the date of original accusations. | State argues pattern instructions suffice; original accusation date may be used. | The court erred by not informing jury of original accusation date; kept keeping a house of prostitution proper at trial but misapplied for pimping. |
| Whether the evidence supports keeping a house of prostitution | Evidence insufficient to sustain keeping a house of prostitution. | Evidence adequate to prove keeping a place of prostitution. | Keeping a place of prostitution conviction reversed for insufficiency; pimping conviction reversed due to statute issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Finkelstein, 170 Ga.App. 608 (1984) (judge's legal instructions govern, not jury questions of law)
- Mobley v. State, 219 Ga.App. 789 (1996) (juror should be informed of the relevant accusations' dates)
- Salem v. State, 228 Ga. 186 (1971) (trial court should provide relevant accusations or indictments to jury)
- Jenkins v. State, 278 Ga. 598 (2004) (state bears burden to prove crime occurred within limitation period)
- State v. Conzo, 293 Ga.App. 72 (2008) (form vs. substance of indictment amendments; legal determination)
- Lee v. State, 304 Ga.App. 681 (2010) (amendment timing and scope relevant to limitations analysis)
- Wooten v. State, 240 Ga.App. 725 (1999) (amendment form vs. substance considerations)