The state filed an accusation against Hwa Ja Lee in the State Court of Coweta County on January 31, 2008, charging that on or about June 30, 2006, she committed the misdemeanor offenses of keeping a place of prostitution OCGA § 16-6-10 and prostitution OCGA § 16-6-9. The state filed an amended accusation on July 14, 2008, which amended the date alleged in the accusation, stating that the offenses were committed “between on or about June 30, 2006 through on or about July 11, 2006,” and alleged that Lee committed the offense of pimping OCGA § 16-6-11, also a misdemeanor,1 rather than prostitution. A jury convicted Lee of keeping a place of prostitution and pimping. On appeal, Lee raises several related enumerations of error, arguing that her convictions should be reversed because the statute of limitation barred the prosecution and that the trial court erred when it did not allow her to raise the defense of the statute of limitation. We review this case de novo,2 reverse Lee’s conviction for pimping because it was barred by the statute of limitation, and affirm the conviction for keeping a place of prostitution. 1. In four enumerations of error, Lee argues that her motion in arrest of judgment and for a new trial should have been granted because the statute of limitation barred the prosecution of the charges set forth in the amended accusation. For reasons stated below, we agree with Lee that the charge of pimping was time-barred, but the amended accusation was valid as to the charge of keeping a place of prostitution.
Pursuant to OCGA § 17-3-1 d, “prosecution for misdemeanors must be commenced within two years after the commission of the crime.” “The two-year period runs from the date the offense was committed until the date the original accusation is filed.”3 In the instant case, the original accusation was filed within the statute of limitation, but the amended accusation was not. OCGA § 17-7-71 f governs the amendment of accusations and provides that prior to trial, the prosecuting attorney may amend the accusation, summons, or any citation to allege or to change the allegations regarding any offense arising out of the same conduct of the defendant which gave rise to any offense alleged or attempted to be alleged in the original accusation, summons, or citation.4 A copy of any such amendment shall be served upon the defendant or his or her counsel and the original filed with the clerk of the court. Here, there is no dispute that Lee received the amended accusation before trial. Instead, the question here is whether the amended accusation was valid since it was filed after the expiration of the applicable two-year statute of limitation.
