Shane v. State, 320 Ga. App. 1

Shane was indicted on four counts of aggravated child molestation and two counts of child molestation for acts between June 1, 2010 and May 25, 2011.
Shane moved to quash the indictment, arguing the State could narrow the date range but had not done so.
At a hearing, the State conceded incarceration during part of the period and noted a grand jury had reindicted with a narrower date range that morning.
The State requested deferred ruling on the motion to quash and sought entry of nolle prosequi to avoid releasing Shane on bond.
The trial court consented to nolle prosequi based on Layman, finding no allegation or evidence of State abuse, and deferred ruling on the motion to quash.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused discretion by entering nolle prosequi instead of granting the motion to quash	Shane contends Dempsey required granting the quash.	State argues deferment and nolle prosequi avoid prejudice and are permissible.	No abuse; discretion to enter nolle prosequi exists.
Whether Dempsey controls and requires quashing the indictment	Dempsey mandates quash when legally defective.	Dempsey error is distinguishable; no legal error here.	Distinguishable; trial court did not error.
Whether Layman and related authorities require a special demurrer when date range can be narrowed	Indictment subject to special demurrer if the date range can be narrowed.	Court correctly applied discretionary stay of ruling; no abuse.	Not required to quash; nolle prosequi permissible.

State v. Layman, 280 Ga. 794 (Ga. 2006) (trial court may use nolle prosequi to avoid application of OCGA § 17-7-53.1)
State v. Lejeune, 276 Ga. 179 (Ga. 2003) (discretion to order nolle prosequi; impact on double jeopardy considerations)
State v. Layman, 279 Ga. 340 (Ga. 2005) (reaffirmed Layman principles on timing and nolle prosequi)
Dempsey, 290 Ga. 763 (Ga. 2012) (trial court error in denying motion to quash based on timing; maior issue)