Williams v. State
307 Ga. 778
| Ga. | 2020Background:
- Police searched Keith Williams’s home (Jan. 23, 2013) and seized computers containing multiple images of child pornography.
- A Gwinnett County grand jury indicted Williams on 48 counts under OCGA § 16-12-100(b)(8), each count alleging possession of a different illicit image on the same day/location.
- Williams moved to dismiss Counts 2–48 as multiplicitous, arguing simultaneous possession of multiple images in one place constitutes a single offense; the trial court granted dismissal and ordered consolidation into one count.
- The State appealed; the Court of Appeals reversed, holding each image may support a separate charge and conviction. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
- The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ judgment but on a different ground: the trial court lacked authority to dismiss or consolidate multiplicitous counts pretrial; substantive double jeopardy protections (and merger) operate after conviction/sentencing, so pretrial dismissal on those grounds is improper. The Court also declined to resolve the unit-of-prosecution question for OCGA § 16-12-100(b)(8).
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to dismiss multiplicitous counts pretrial on substantive double jeopardy grounds | Williams: trial court may dismiss multiplicitous counts pretrial to avoid multiple punishments | State: substantive double jeopardy protects against multiple convictions/punishments and applies after conviction; trial court lacks authority to dismiss pretrial | Trial court lacked authority to dismiss/consolidate counts pretrial; substantive double jeopardy is a post-conviction remedy |
| Proper vehicle to challenge multiplicity before trial | Williams: motion to dismiss (or special demurrer) may be used to consolidate/dismiss multiplicitous counts | State: a special demurrer addresses form/specificity, not substantive double jeopardy; general demurrer challenges substance | Special demurrer can only address specificity or identical duplicate counts; it cannot be used to obtain pretrial dismissal based on substantive double jeopardy |
| Unit of prosecution for possession of multiple child-pornography images under OCGA § 16-12-100(b)(8) | Williams: simultaneous possession of multiple images in one location is one offense | State/Ct. of Appeals: each image can be separately charged | Not decided; Supreme Court declined to resolve unit-of-prosecution question and warned Court of Appeals’ merits analysis should not be treated as precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Stephens v. Hopper, 241 Ga. 596 (discussion of double jeopardy procedural vs substantive protections)
- Keener v. State, 238 Ga. 7 (substantive double jeopardy applies after verdict/sentencing)
- Coates v. State, 304 Ga. 329 (identify unit of prosecution when multiple convictions under same statute are at issue)
- Ohio v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 493 (Double Jeopardy Clause does not preclude multiple charges in a single prosecution)
- Universal C.I.T. Credit Corp. v. United States, 344 U.S. 218 (statutory unit-of-prosecution analysis; not a Double Jeopardy ruleblocking prosecution)
- Kimbrough v. State, 300 Ga. 878 (distinguishing special demurrer (form/specificity) from general demurrer (substance))
- Scott v. State, 306 Ga. 507 (merger doctrine: multiple convictions can be merged at sentencing under substantive double jeopardy)