FOURTH D I VI SI ON BA RNES, P. J. , RA Y and M CM I LLI A N, JJ.

N O T IC E : M otions for re c ons i de r a tion m us t be phy s ic a lly re ce iv e d in our cle r k ’s offic e w ithin te n da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

http://w w w .ga a ppe a l s .us /r ule s Septem ber 28, 2015



# In t h e C o u rt o f Ap p e a l s o f Ge o r g i a

A15A1597. HER

R ING v. THE STATE.

B A R N E S , Pre siding Judge

.
W e gra nte d C urtis He rri n g J r

. ’s inte rloc utory re vie w of the tria l c ourt’ s orde r

ove rruling his s pe c ia l de m urre r. He rring’ s indic tm e n t c ha rge d him with e ight se xua l

offe nse s a ga inst his ste

pda ughte r tha t took pla c e during thre e diffe re nt da te ra nge s –

Ja nua ry 11, 2013 to O c tobe r 28, 2013; Oc tobe r 28, 2013 to Au g u st 2 0, 2014; a n d
August 20, 2014 to Se pte m be r 24, 2014, re pre se nting the t im e pe riods tha t H e rring a n d

the vic tim re s ide d in t

he hom e s in whic h she a lle ge d the s e xua l c onta c t ha d o c c urre d.
Spe c ific a lly , He rring w a s c ha rge d with: (1) inc e st be twe e n Ja nu ar y 1 1 , 2013 a

n d

Oc tobe r 28, 2013; (2) i nc e s t b e twe e n Oc tobe r 28, 2 013 a nd August 2 0, 2 014; (3) inc e st

be twe e n August 20, 2014 a nd Se p te m

be r 24, 2014; (4) c hild m ole sta t i o n be twe e n August 20, 2014 a nd Se pte m be r 24, 2014; (5) c hild m o le sta tion be twe e n Ja

nua ry 11,

2013 a nd O ct o b er 28, 2013; (6) a g gra va te d c hild m ole sta tion be twe e n Oc tobe r 28,2013 a n d Augu st 20, 2014; (7) a ggra va te d sodom y be twe e n Oc tobe r 28, 2013 a n d
August 28, 2014; a

n d (8) a ggra va te d sodom

y be twe e n Oc tobe r 28, 2013 a nd August
20, 2014.

He rring file d a spe c ia l de m urre r to q ua sh the indic tm e n t on the ground tha t the

Sta t e fa ile d to a de qua te ly n a rrow the thre e d a t e ra n ge s, e ve n t hough it ha d t

he a bility

to d o so. Following a he a ring, the tria l c ourt ove rrule d the de m urre r, but c e rtifie d its

orde r for im

m e dia te re vie w . He rring now a ppe a l s from the gra nt of his inte rloc utory

a pplic a tion. On a

p pe a l , He rring c onte nds tha t the indic tm e n t is im pe rfe c t in form

be c a use the Sta te a lle ge d a m onth-long da te ra nge in C ounts 3 a nd 4 e ve n though the

vic t im wa s a

ble to s pe c ify t

ha t she ha d se x with He rring o n Se pte m be r 24, 2014. Upon

our re vie w, a nd finding the indic tm e nt insuffic ie nt a s to C ounts 3 a n d 4 , we re ve rse the

tria l c ourt’ s de nia l of He rring’ s de m urre r a s to those c ounts.

In re v i e wing a ruling on a s p eci a l d e m u rre r, we a

pply a d e novo sta nda rd of re vie w, be c a

use it is a q

ue stion o f la

w whe t he r the a lle ga tions in the indic tm e nt a re le ga lly s uffic ie nt. Furthe r, be c a use we a re re v ie wing

a n indic tm e nt be fore a

n y tr i al , w e do not c onduc t a h a rm le ss e rror

a na ly sis to de te rm ine if the de fe nda n t ha s a c tua lly be e n p re

judic e d by the

a lle ge d de fic ie nc ie s in the indic tm e nt; ra the r, we m ust a pply the rule tha t

a de fe nda nt who ha s t im e ly file d a spe c ia l de m u rre r is e ntitle d to a n indic tm e nt pe rfe c t in form a nd substa

n c e

.

2(C ita

tion om i tte d.) Blanton v

. State , 324 Ga

. App. 610, 614 (2) (751 SE2d 4 31) (2013).

At the he a ring on H e rring’ s s pe c ia l de m u rre r, t h e le a d inve stiga tor who

inte rvie we d the vic tim a nd who e sta blishe d the da te ra nge s i n t he indic t m e nt, te stifie d

tha t the vic tim c ould not re m e m be r the e x a c t da te s tha t the s e xua l c onta c t ha d o c c urre d.

Howe ve r, she provide d him with the thre e a d dre sse s tha t she ha d l ive d whe n she wa s

m ole ste d a nd tha t he ha d the n de rive d the thre e da te ra nge s in t he indic tm e nt from the

da te s on t he l e a se a gre e m e nts of e a c h a ddre ss. The vic tim told h im that H er r i n g h ad

se x with h e r “ four or five ” tim e s whe n the y live d a t the B a rk Av enue a ddre ss whic h

wa s le a se d from Ja

nua ry 11, 2013 to Oc tobe r 2 8, 2013, re pre s e nting C ounts 1 a nd 5.

The y ne xt le a se d a re side nc e on El Pino R oa d from Oc tobe r 28, 2 013 to August 2 0,
2014, C ounts 2, 6, 7, a nd 8, whe re the vic tim a lle ge d tha t sodom y ha d oc c urre d a nd she

a nd He rring ha d se xua l inte rc ourse “ te n or m ore tim e s.”

He rring a nd the vic tim ne xt lived at an a ddre s s on Highwa y 111, w he re the

vic t im wa s living whe n she m a de he r o u tc ry

. 1 The vic tim told the inve s tiga tor tha t

He rring ha d se x with he r on m ultiple oc c a sions w hile a t tha t l oc a tion, a nd re m e m be re d

1 The De pa

rtm e nt o f Fa m ily a nd C hildre n Se rvic e s re m ove d the vic t im from the hom e on Oc t obe r 6, 2014 a fte r he r disc losure

. 3tha t Se pte m

be r 24, 2 014, b e twe e n 5 :30 a nd 6 :30 p .m ., wa s the la st da y tha t He rring

ha d se x with he r. The da te ran g e a lle ge d in the indic t m e nt wa s August 2 0, 2014 to

Se pte m be r 24, 2014, re pre s e nting C ounts 3 a nd 4. The inve stiga tor te stifie d tha t he

inc l ude d the ra

nge of d a te s be c a

use it re pre se nte d the tim e H e rring a nd the vic tim live d on Highwa

y 111 until the

da te the vic tim

re c a lle d a s the la st da

y the y ha d se x. 2

The inve stiga

tor te stifie d tha t w he n the vic tim s a id tha t she c ould n ot re m e m be r
the da te s tha t the se xua l c onduc t ha d oc c u rre d, only whe re the y w e re l i ving whe n i t

oc c urre d, a nd onc e he wa s a ble to a s c e rta in the da te s in t he d iffe re nt re s ide nc e s, he did

not a t te m pt to furthe r na

rrow the da te s b y a sking the vic tim que s tions suc h a s whe the r
the inc ide nts oc c urre d ne a r C hristm a s, he r b irthda

y , or wh i l e s h e w as in o r out of

sc hool. The inve stiga

tor furthe r te stifie d t

ha t , ra the r tha

n bring m ultiple c ha

rge s for the

va rious a ct s , he h a d c ha

rge d He rring with only o ne c ount e a c h for the c rim e s

c om m itte d in e a c h of the thre e re side nc e s.

“ W e c onduc t a de n ovo re vie w of a t ria l c ourt’ s ruling on a spe c ia l de m urre r in

orde r to de te rm ine w he the r the a lle ga tions in t h e i n d ictm e nt a re le g a l ly suffic ie nt.” (C ita tion a nd punc tua tion om itte d.) State v

. Godfre y , 309 Ga

. A pp. 234, 239 (3) (709

2 The indic tm e nt doe s not spe c ify a ny pa rtic ula r loc a tion for the a lle ge d c rim e s, othe r tha n “ Gra dy C o unty

. ”
4SE2d 572) (2011). W e a pply diffe re nt sta

nda rds whe n we re vie w rulings on spe c ia l

de m urre rs p re tria l a nd post-tria l. W he n re vi ew ing a ruling be fore tria l, w e c onside r
whe the r the indic tm e nt is pe rfe c t in form a nd substa n c e , but whe n re vie wing i t af te r
tria l , we co nside r whe t

he r the de fe n da

nt s uffe re d a c tua l p re

judic e from a lle g e d

de fic ie nc ie s in the indic tm e nt. State v

. Gamblin , 2 51 Ga

. App. 283, 284 (1) (553 SE2d
866) (2001). He re , we re vie w the indic tm e nt pre -tria l to c o nside r w he the r it is pe rfe c t

in form a nd substa

nc e

.

“ Ge ne ra lly , a n ind i ct m en t whic h fa ils to a lle ge a spe c ific da te on whic h the

c rim e wa s c o m

m itte d is n o t p er f

ec t in form a nd i s subje c t to a tim e ly spe c ia l

de m urre r.” (C ita

tions, punc tua tion a nd footnote om i tte d .) State v

. Lay man , 279 G a

. 340, 340–341 (613 SE2d 639) (2005); se e OC GA § 17- 7

- 54 (a ) (indic tm e nt should

sta te with suffic ie nt c e rta inty the tim e a nd pla c e of c o m m i tting offe nse ). Howe ve r, if

the Sta te c a n show t

ha t the e vide nc e doe s not pe rm it it to a lle ge a spe c i fic da te , it m a y

a lle ge tha t the c rim e o c c urre d be twe e n two spe c ific d a te s

. Id. In re sponse to a spe c ia l

de m urre r, t h e S t a te m

ust pre se nt e vide nc e to t

he tria l c ourt showing tha t i t c a nnot

na rrow the da t e of the cr im e, a nd a bse nt suc h a showing, a n indic t m e nt fa iling to

c ha rge a spe c ific da te is im

pe rfe c t a nd subje c t to s pe c ia l de m urre r. Blac k

mon v

. State ,

5272 Ga

. App. 8 5 4, 855 (614 SE2d 118) (2005) (tria l c ourt e rre d in de nyi n g s p ecia l

de m urre r whe n Sta te introduc e d no e vide nc e , only a rg u m en t , t h a t m inor vic tim wa s

“ inc a pa ble o f a de qua te ly

a rtic ula ting e xa c tly

whe n the offe n se oc c urre d” ). H e r e , t h e
Sta t e pre se nte d e vide nc e tha t the vic tim told the inve stiga t or tha t she a nd H e rring la st

ha d se xua l inte rc ours e o n S ep t em be r 24, 2014 a t the Highwa y 111 a d dre ss a nd a lso

e nga ge d in se xua l c onduc t m ultiple tim e s during the m onth the y live d a t the Highwa y

111 a ddre ss. He rring wa s c har g ed w i t h one c ount of inc e st a nd one c o unt of c hild

m ole sta tion be t we e n A ugust 20, 2014 a nd Se pte m be r 24, 2014. The Sta te c onte nds tha t

the e xc e ption to the single -da te rule a pplie s in this c a se be c a

use the vic tim

c ould not

ide n ti f y t h e e xa c t da te s o f “ m

ultiple prior oc c a sions whe n [He rring] m ole ste d [the ]

vic t im ” a t the Highwa

y 111 a ddre ss.

Howe v e r, the vic tim ’ s a lle ga tions tha t He rring c om m itte d m u ltiple a c ts of

m ole sta tion a nd inc e st on unknown da te s during tha t tim e pe riod a re irre le va

nt to the

issue he re

. He rring is c h a

rge d with only one c ount e a c h o f inc e st a nd c hild m ole sta tion during this da te ra nge

. The e v ide nc e de m onstra t e s t ha t the Sta te i s ab l e to ide ntify a single da te on whic h t

he c onduc t oc c u rre d , Se pte m be r 24, 2014, a

nd wa s the re fore a

ble

to na rrow the da te of those two c rim e s in t he indic tm e nt. Thus, those c ounts o f the

6indic tm e nt a re s ubje c t to a spe c ia l de m urre r. Se e State v

. Lay man , 279 Ga

. a t 340-341;

State v

. M

e e k s , 309 Ga

. App. 855, 858 (1) (711 SE2d 4 0 3) (2011) (tria l c ourt did not

e rr in susta ini n g s p ecia l de m urre r whe n Sta te p re se nte d no e vide nc e a bout why a n
inve stiga ting offic e r fa i le d to a sc e rta in spe c ific da te s of offe nse s a lle ge dly o c c urring during the two-m onth pe riod a lle ge d in the indic tm e nt.)

A cco r d ingly , b e c a

use the e vide nc e s howe d tha t the Sta te re a sona bly c ould

na rrow the ra nge of da te s a lle ge d in C ounts 3 a nd 4 o f the indic tm e nt to a s ingle da te ,

we re ve rse the orde r of the t ria l c ourt ove rruling He rrings’ s spe c ia l de m u rre r a s to

those c ounts.

Ou r h o l d i n g d oes n o t p recl u de t h e St at e fro m rei n d i ct i n g Herri n g o n Co u n ts 3

an d 4 up o n t h e ret u rn o f t h i s c a s e t o t h e t ri al co u rt

. W al la ce v. S t a t e , 2 5 3 Ga. Ap p.

2 2 0 , 2 2 3 (3 ) (5 5 8 SE2 d 7 7 3 ) (2 0 0 2 ) (W h en a d efen d an t fi l es a sp eci al d em u rrer
ch al l en g i n g t h e f

o r m o f an i m

p erfect i nd i ct m en t, “ t h e q u as h i n g o f [t h e] i n d i ct m en t

m erel y b ars t ri al o n t h e fl awed i n di ct m en t ; i t do es n o t b ar t h e St at e fro m rei n d i ct i n g

t h e d efen d an t .”) (fo o t no te o m i tt ed ).

Ju d g men t r ever sed . Ra y a n d McMi l l i a n , JJ., co n cu r
.

7