Newsome v. State

The accusation failed to identify with particularity the property of the victim the defendant was alleged to have interfered with and damaged to support his trial for criminal trespass.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Pursuant to a granted interlocutory appeal, George Newsome challenges the order of the State Court of Gwinnett Count denying his general and special demurrers to the accusation. The Gwinnett County Solicitor General charged Newsome with two misdemeanors: criminal trespass and violating a family violence order. Newsome filed both general and special demurrers to the accusation, contending the charges as drafted were not legally sufficient. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the state court’s order. The accusation, in relevant part, charged Newsome in Count 1 with the offense of CRIMINAL TRESPASS-DAMAGE/INTERFERE, for that said Accused, on or about August 10, 2007, in Gwinnett County, Georgia, did unlawfully damage and interfere with the property of the victim, in violation of OCGA § 16-7-21 a; and, in Count 2,

with the offense of VIOLATION OF FAMILY VIOLENCE ORDER, for that said Accused, on or about August 10, 2007, in Gwinnett County, Georgia, did unlawfully violate the provisions of a family violence order, in violation of OCGA § 16-5-95. Newsome contends the state court erred in denying his general and special demurrers to these charges, as explained in more detail below. We review the court’s order pursuant to the following law: “A general demurrer challenges the sufficiency of the substance of the indictment or accusation, whereas a special demurrer challenges the sufficiency of the form of the indictment or accusation.” Citations and footnote omitted; emphasis supplied. Bramblett v. State , 239 Ga. 336, 337 1 236 SE2d 580 1977; see generally State v. Eubanks , 239 Ga. 483, 485-486 238 SE2d 38 1977. With respect to general demurrers:

Newsome v. State

The accusation failed to identify with particularity the property of the victim the defendant was alleged to have interfered with and damaged to support his trial for criminal trespass.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report