The State v. Wright, 333 Ga. App. 124

Defendant Tommy Lugene Wright was indicted for possession of a controlled substance in violation of OCGA § 16-13-30(a).
The indictment identified the substance as “3,4-methylenedioxy-N-ethylcathinone (ethylone), a substituted 2-aminopropan-1-one, a Schedule 1 controlled substance.”
The trial court granted a general demurrer to that count, finding the indictment insufficient.
The State appealed the grant of the general demurrer to the Court of Appeals of Georgia.
The central factual/pleading question was whether the indictment’s description sufficiently identified a substance listed as a Schedule 1 controlled substance under the statute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether indictment sufficiently alleges a controlled substance under OCGA § 16-13-25	The phrase “substituted 2-aminopropan-1-one” shows ethylone fits §16-13-25(12)(L)’s structural definition	The indictment’s description is ambiguous and may cover compounds not within the statutory definition, so it fails to charge a crime	Indictment insufficient; demurrer properly granted
Standard for reviewing a general demurrer	General demurrer tests legal sufficiency; if facts as alleged would make defendant guilty, it survives	Same description: indictment must unambiguously charge an offense	Applied de novo; strict construction against the State leads to affirming demurrer

Bryant v. State, 320 Ga. App. 838 (2013) (describing scope and effect of a general demurrer)
State v. Corhen, 306 Ga. App. 495 (2010) (indictment must state offense in Code terms or plainly enough for jury)
State v. McDowell, 301 Ga. App. 751 (2009) (review of demurrer is a question of law reviewed de novo)
Nixdorf v. State, 226 Ga. 615 (1970) (assessing sufficiency of indictment allegations relative to statutory definitions)
Tibbs v. State, 211 Ga. App. 250 (1993) (indictment that misidentifies substance category fails to state an offense)