Mosby v. State, 319 Ga. App. 642

Mosby was indicted in Gwinnett County on multiple counts of sexual offenses against four children, with most counts alleging offenses within a date range rather than a specific date.
Mosby filed a special demurrer seeking narrowing of the date range and a motion to dismiss/plea in bar based on statutes of limitation.
The trial court overruled the demurrer and denied the motion to dismiss; Mosby appeals challenging the form of the indictment and timeliness.
The majority holds the indictment as to Counts 1–14 is imperfect and subject to the special demurrer because the State did not show it could narrow the dates; the State did not present evidentiary grounds at the hearing.
Counts 1, 3, 4, 6 (child molestation against a minor in 2001) were timely under tolling provisions; Counts 2, 5, 9, 10 were barred by the statute of limitations because tolling was not invoked or period expired.
The majority reverses the ruling on the special demurrer and indicates the State may reindict Counts 1–14; the dissent would remand for an evidentiary hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the trial court err in overruling the special demurrer for Counts 1–14?	Mosby contends no evidence showed the State could not specify dates; the indictment should be narrowed or dismissed.	State argued child victims may not recall exact dates, invoking an exception; evidence was lacking as to inability to narrow dates.	Yes; the special demurrer should have been sustained.
Are Counts 1, 3, 4, 6 timely despite the date-range allegations?	Mosby argues timeliness under statutes of limitation; some counts time-barred.	State relies on tolling for victims under 14 and applicable delays; some counts timely.	Counts 1, 3, 4, 6 were timely due to tolling; Counts 2, 5, 9, 10 barred.
Are Counts 2, 5, 9, and 10 barred by the statute of limitations?	Mosby asserts these counts exceed the limitation period.	State asserts tolling or timely filing for these counts did occur.	Yes; Counts 2, 5, 9, 10 are barred. The State failed to prosecute within the time provided.

State v. Layman, 279 Ga. 340 (2005) (special demurrer standard: must show inability to narrow dates; not applicable if evidence supports narrowing)
Blackmon v. State, 272 Ga. App. 854 (2005) (child-victim date specificity cannot be speculative; evidentiary showing required)
State v. Gamblin, 251 Ga. App. 283 (2001) (post-trial review of demurrer; different standard from pretrial ruling)
Moore v. State, 294 Ga. App. 570 (2008) (vacate denial of special demurrer and remand for evidentiary hearing)
State v. Godfrey, 309 Ga. App. 234 (2011) (tolling under OCGA 17-3-2.1 for victims under 14; impact on timeliness)