State v. Meeks
309 Ga. App. 855
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Meeks was charged by accusation with multiple offenses including electronically furnishing obscene material to a minor, contributing to delinquency, drug possession charges, theft by taking, and theft by deception.
- Meeks filed a special demurrer; the trial court sustained it as to some counts and overruled as to others.
- The State appeals in Case No. A11A0698; Meeks appeals in Case No. A11A0699, challenging the sustained demurrers and the overrulings.
- The appellate court divided the analysis by counts: Counts 1-2 (obscene material and delinquency) were challenged for date specificity; Counts 11-14 (theft by taking) and Counts 17-20 (theft by deception) were challenged for duplicativeness and sufficiency; Counts 6-10 (dangerous drug possession, theft by taking) and Count 16 (theft by deception) were challenged on place language and elements.
- The court applied a de novo standard for special demurrers and reviewed whether the accusations were legally sufficient to inform Meeks and distinguish other charges, as required by Georgia law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Counts 1-2 adequately allege dates. | Meeks argues the dates are insufficiently specific. | State contends the dates are adequate or can be narrowed. | Counts 1-2 defective for lack of date specificity; special demurrer affirmed. |
| Whether Counts 11-14 and 17-20 are duplicative or fail to allege theft elements. | Counts 11-13/14 and 17-20 track theft by taking/deception; they are distinguishable and properly alleged. | Counts 14 and 17-20 are duplicative or fail to allege distinct elements. | Counts 11-13 properly allege theft by taking; Count 14 duplicative; Counts 17-20 duplicative in failure to allege elements of theft by deception; demurrer affirmed for 14; reversed for 17-20 to the extent they are not properly alleged. |
| Whether Counts 6-9, 10, and 16 sufficiently name the place of offense or are otherwise defective. | Meeks argues the place name is too vague. | Place in a county suffices absent a necessary element of the offense. | Place naming in these counts is sufficient; demurrer overruled for Counts 6-9, 10; Count 16 defective as theft by deception. |
| Whether Count 16, the theft by deception, is sufficiently pleaded distinct from theft by taking. | Counts 16 should be viable theft by deception with distinct elements. | Counts 16 merely duplicative replication of theft by taking elements. | Count 16 is insufficiently pleaded; demurrer affirmed as to Count 16. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Corhen, 306 Ga.App. 495 (2010) (special demurrer standard; legality of form)
- McDaniel v. State, 298 Ga.App. 558 (2009) (indictment sufficiency under general demurrer)
- Newsmne v. State, 296 Ga.App. 490 (2009) (special demurrer basics; liberal reading of pleadings in favor of the State)
- Howard v. State, 281 Ga.App. 797 (2006) (narrowing the date range exception to special demurrer)
- Layman v. State, 279 Ga. 340 (2005) (date narrowing when two dates alleged; necessity to narrow range)
- Conley v. State, 281 Ga.App. 841 (2006) (elements and notice under special demurrer; distinguishability of counts)
- Falagian v. State, 300 Ga.App. 187 (2009) (distinguishing multiple theft-by-taking counts; sufficiency of pleading)
- Bradford v. State, 266 Ga.App. 198 (2004) (theft by taking scope and pleading; catch-all provisions)
- Gentry v. State, 235 Ga.App. 328 (1998) (place sufficiency when not an essential element)
- Hunt v. State, 303 Ga.App. 855 (2010) (evidence and date establishment for electronic communications)
- Kuritzky v. Emory Univ., 294 Ga.App. 370 (2008) (admissible date/time evidence; context for electronic records)