The State appeals from the trial court’s grant of David Outen’s special demurrer as to Count 1 of the indictment charging him with homicide by vehicle in the first degree. Finding no error, we affirm. The State charged in Count 1 that Outen committed homicide by vehicle in the first degree, alleging that he without malice aforethought and while driving a motor vehicle on West Broad Street, unlawfully caused the death of Trina Heard through the violation of OCGA § 40-6-390, Reckless Driving; in that said accused did drive said motor vehicle on said roadway in reckless disregard for the safety of persons and property; said Reckless Driving being the cause of said death; in violation of OCGA § 40-6-393 a, contrary to the laws of said State. Outen specially demurred to Count 1, arguing that it provided insufficient detail to allow him to prepare his defense because it lacked any specific facts supporting the reckless driving allegation. Following a hearing, the trial court agreed and granted the special demurrer, and the State appeals that ruling.
OCGA § 17-7-54 a provides that a grand jury indictment that “states the offense in the terms and language of this Code or so plainly that the nature of the offense charged may easily be understood by the jury shall be deemed sufficiently technical and correct.” “By filing a special demurrer, an accused claims, not that the charge in an indictment is fatally defective and incapable of supporting a conviction as would be asserted by general demurrer, but rather that the charge is imperfect as to form or that the accused is entitled to more information.”1 When reviewing an indictment before trial, we “apply the rule that a defendant who has timely filed a special demurrer is entitled to an indictment perfect in form and substance.”2 The real test, therefore, is not whether the indictment could have been clearer, but whether it states the elements of the offense and sufficiently apprises the defendant of what he must be prepared to meet, and, in case any other proceedings are taken against him for a similar offense, whether the record shows with accuracy to what extent he may plead a former acquittal or conviction. Thus, it is useful to remember that the purpose of the indictment is to allow defendant to prepare his defense intelligently and to protect him from double jeopardy.3 OCGA § 40-6-390 a provides that “any person who drives any vehicle in reckless disregard for the safety of persons or property commits the offense of reckless driving.” Reckless driving can be committed in a number of different ways,4 none of which is alleged in the indictment.5 Thus,
