Herring v. State

Two of the eight counts of the indictment against the defendant were subject to a special demurrer, because the evidence showed that the State reasonably could narrow the date range alleged in those counts to a single date.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

We granted Curtis Herring Jr.’s interlocutory review of the trial court’s order overruling his special demurrer. Herring’s indictment charged him with eight sexual offenses against his stepdaughter that took place during three different date ranges – January 11, 2013 to October 28, 2013; October 28, 2013 to August 20, 2014; and August 20, 2014 to September 24, 2014, representing the time periods that Herring and the victim resided in the homes in which she alleged the sexual contact had occurred. Specifically, Herring was charged with: 1 incest between January 11, 2013 and October 28, 2013; 2 incest between October 28, 2013 and August 20, 2014; 3 incest between August 20, 2014 and September 24, 2014; 4 child molestation between August 20, 2014 and September 24, 2014; 5 child molestation between January 11, 2013 and October 28, 2013; 6 aggravated child molestation between October 28, 2013 and August 20, 2014; 7 aggravated sodomy between October 28, 2013 and August 28, 2014; and 8 aggravated sodomy between October 28, 2013 and August 20, 2014.

Herring filed a special demurrer to quash the indictment on the ground that the State failed to adequately narrow the three date ranges, even though it had the ability to do so. Following a hearing, the trial court overruled the demurrer, but certified its order for immediate review. Herring now appeals from the grant of his interlocutory application. On appeal, Herring contends that the indictment is imperfect in form because the State alleged a month-long date range in Counts 3 and 4 even though the victim was able to specify that she had sex with Herring on September 24, 2014. Upon our review, and finding the indictment insufficient as to Counts 3 and 4, we reverse the trial court’s denial of Herring’s demurrer as to those counts.

Herring v. State

Two of the eight counts of the indictment against the defendant were subject to a special demurrer, because the evidence showed that the State reasonably could narrow the date range alleged in those counts to a single date.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report