Blackmon v. State

The defendant was entitled to an indictment, which was perfect in form and substance, and the defendant's indictment alleging that the crimes occurred between 1994 and 1998 was imperfect, because it did not allege the specific date on which the crimes were committed.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

A grand jury indicted Perez Blackmon on two counts of child molestation and two counts of rape. Each count contains the same form of averment as to the date of the offense charged: “between the dates of January 1, 1994 and December 31, 1998, the exact dates not being known to the Grand Jury and said date not being alleged to be a material allegation of this Indictment . . .” Blackmon filed a timely special demurrer seeking to have the indictment and each count contained in the indictment quashed and dismissed on the grounds that the indictment was imperfect because it did not allege the exact dates of the crimes, the state selected an arbitrary time frame to aver in the indictment counts, and the state failed to carry its burden of showing the specific date is unavailable. The trial court denied Blackmon’s special demurrer. We granted interlocutory review to determine whether the trial court erred in denying Blackmon’s special demurrer. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse. Under Georgia law, different standards apply to special demurrers filed before trial and those filed after trial. Because we are reviewing Blackmon’s indictment before any trial, we do not conduct a harmless error analysis to determine if he has actually been prejudiced by the alleged deficiencies in the indictment; rather, we must apply the rule that a defendant who has timely filed a special demurrer is entitled to an indictment perfect in form and substance.1

Generally, an indictment which fails to allege a specific date on which the crime was committed is not perfect in form and is subject to a timely special demurrer.2 This Court has recognized an exception to this rule where the evidence does not permit the state to identify a single date on which the offense occurred.3 However, this exception is not applicable in this case because the state never presented any evidence before the trial court showing that it cannot more specifically identify the dates of the offenses.

Blackmon v. State

The defendant was entitled to an indictment, which was perfect in form and substance, and the defendant's indictment alleging that the crimes occurred between 1994 and 1998 was imperfect, because it did not allege the specific date on which the crimes were committed.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report