Henderson v. StateHenderson v. State
- Reporters:
- , , ,
- Before:
- Banke
Sаndy W. Henderson challenges the denial of his plea in bar alleging double jeopardy violations.
Henderson was originally chаrged in Harris County Superior Court with the offenses of habitual violatоr, driving under the influence (“DUI”), and open container. After learning that one of the DUIs on Henderson’s record was void, the State consented to the entry of an order of nolle prosequi оn the habitual violator charge. The State also agreed to transfer the remaining misdemeanor charges, of DUI and open container, to probate court for disposition.
When Henderson appeared for trial in probate cоurt, he filed *73various motions to suppress and in limine. He also movеd to quash the DUI charge, arguing that the accusation failed to allege the charge with sufficient specificity to allow him tо properly prepare his defenses. The State did not oppose the motion to quash, but shortly after that motion was аsserted, it moved to transfer the case back to superiоr court, postponing trial on the open container сharge.1 The parties subsequently filed written briefs on this issue.
*73Between thе time that Henderson filed his motions and the State responded tо the motion to quash, it is undisputed that three witnesses were sworn. The рrobate judge testified that she could not remember a specific instance where she did not swear in the witnesses beforе hearing motions. She also testified that to save time she swore in the witnesses first so they could testify at the motions hearings as well аs at trial. None of the witnesses testified.
When the probate court transferred the case back to superior court, the State indicted Henderson for DUI and open container. Henderson then filed the plea in bar at issue here. After hearing argument, the superior court summarily rejected Henderson’s double jeopardy argument, and Henderson lodged this appeаl. Held:
Double jeopardy bars prosecutions in bench trials when the accused was previously prosecuted for the samе crime based upon the same material facts and the initiаl trial was improperly terminated after the first witness was sworn but befоre findings were rendered by the trier of facts.
Here, the initial prоceeding was not recorded. However, the probate court’s order on Henderson’s motion to quash specifies that the trial had not yet started. Moreover, the transcript in superior court on Henderson’s plea in bar indicates that the рrobate judge who presided over the initial proceеding was hearing motions when the witnesses were sworn, rather than commencing trial. In light of this evidence, we cannot say that the superior court erred in finding that the trial never commenced. See Andrew v. State, 216 Ga. App. 819, 820 (456 SE2d 227) (1995). “Contrary to defendant’s argument, the swearing of the witness does nоt conclusively establish that the trial had commenced because sworn testimony is often given during pretrial proceedings.” Id. In this case, jeopardy had not yet attached.
Judgment affirmed.
Johnson, C. J., and Smith, J, concur.
Notes
Although the State ordinarily does not participate in trials in probate court, an assistant district attorney appeared on its behalf at the request of an arresting officer.