State v. Leatherwood
326 Ga. App. 730
Ga. Ct. App.2014Background
- State appealed the Clayton County State Court’s grant of Ed Daniel Leatherwood’s special demurrer dismissing all six counts; State challenges dismissal of Counts 1, 2, and 5.
- Counts charged: Count 1 — family-violence battery (striking Loretta Walker, causing bruised bloody lip); Count 2 — simple battery (same act/victim); Count 5 — criminal trespass/property damage (punched hole in victim’s closet door, <$500).
- Leatherwood moved to dismiss for defective form, arguing the accusation failed to specify the weapon, instrument, or body part used to cause injury or damage.
- Trial court granted special demurrer as to all counts; State appealed under OCGA § 5-7-1(a)(1).
- Appellate review is de novo for special demurrers; when reviewed pre-trial, courts do not apply harmless-error analysis and must require indictments/accusations perfect in form and substance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Counts 1 & 2 are fatally vague for not specifying the instrument/part used to inflict the injury | State: counts adequately allege offense, time, place, victim, and manner ("striking" causing visible injury) | Leatherwood: lacked notice of what was used (weapon, tool, instrument, or body part) | Reversed dismissal — counts sufficient; no requirement to allege specific instrument/body part because elements do not demand it |
| Whether Count 5 is defective for failing to identify the instrument/method used to damage property | State: count alleges intentional damage (punching a hole), victim/property, time, and value (<$500) | Leatherwood: accusation fails to inform him how damage was caused (instrument/method) | Reversed dismissal — allegation (punched a hole) adequately notifies defendant; instrument not an element |
| Whether lack of instrument/method impairs defendant's ability to prepare defense or raises double-jeopardy concerns | State: accusation sufficiently apprises defendant of acts to be defended and preserves bar to future prosecutions | Leatherwood: ambiguity could impede defense preparation and hinder former jeopardy pleas | Court: record sufficiently identifies specific acts and event so defendant can prepare and later plead former jeopardy if applicable |
| Standard for sufficiency under special demurrer | N/A | N/A | Indictment/acctn must fairly notify elements and acts; not required to be more definite than necessary — focus on what defendant must meet at trial |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Pittman, 302 Ga. App. 531 (review of special demurrers is de novo)
- State v. Gamblin, 251 Ga. App. 283 (no harmless-error analysis on pretrial review of indictment/accusation defects)
- State v. Delaby, 298 Ga. App. 723 (defendant timely filing special demurrer is entitled to indictment perfect in form and substance)
- D’Auria v. State, 270 Ga. 499 (indictment insufficient where it failed to identify body part, manner, and elements)
- State v. Barnett, 268 Ga. App. 900 (sufficiency test: whether indictment apprises defendant of what to meet and preserves former-jeopardy defense)
- McCannon v. State, 252 Ga. 515 (distinction between constitutional double jeopardy and statutory procedural bars to multiple prosecutions)