Green v. State

292 Ga. 451 (2013) · Supreme Court of Georgia · February 18, 2013

Summary

The Georgia Supreme Court held that a clerk’s erroneous entry of the indictment’s return date was an immaterial defect that could be corrected. Because the indictment accurately alleged the offense date and the clerk corrected the return date, the trial court properly overruled the defendant’s special demurrer. The court affirmed the judgment, with all justices concurring.

Court
Supreme Court of Georgia
Writing for the Court
Hunstein, Chief Justice; All Justices
Jurisdiction
Georgia
Decision date
February 18, 2013
Procedural posture
Green filed a special demurrer challenging his indictment as void because the return date recorded on the indictment preceded the alleged offense dates. The trial court overruled the demurrer and certified its pretrial order for immediate review. The Supreme Court of Georgia granted Green's application for interlocutory appeal.
Standard of review
The Supreme Court reviewed the trial court's ruling on the special demurrer and whether the indictment's alleged formal defect required dismissal.
Precedential value
Published precedential opinion
Parties
Deandra Antwan Green v. State
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

criminal procedureinterlocutory appealappellate procedurepreservation of error

Practice areas

criminal procedureappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the clerk's erroneous entry of March 17, 2011 as the indictment's return date rendered the indictment void because the charged offenses allegedly occurred after the recorded return date.
  2. Whether the return-date error was an immaterial, correctable formal defect rather than a defect requiring dismissal of the indictment.

Holdings

  1. A clerk's erroneous entry of the indictment's return date is an immaterial defect when the indictment otherwise alleges the correct offense date and the evidence establishes and corrects the actual return date.
  2. The trial court properly overruled the special demurrer because it identified, at most, an immaterial defect in the form of the indictment that had been corrected.

Key quotations

We hold that the clerk’s clerical error in entering the indictment’s return date was an immaterial defect that could be corrected. (292 Ga. 451-452)
The purpose of an indictment is to inform the accused of the charges against him and to protect the accused against another prosecution for the same offense. (292 Ga. 452)
A general demurrer challenges the sufficiency of the substance of the indictment, whereas a special demurrer challenges the sufficiency of the form of the indictment. (292 Ga. 452)

Factual background

Green and two codefendants were indicted for offenses arising from events on April 16, 2011. Although the grand jury returned the indictment in open court on May 17, 2011, the clerk mistakenly entered March 17, 2011 as the return date on the indictment and in the criminal docket book. At the special-demurrer hearing, the clerk testified about the mistake and corrected the date to May 17, 2011; the indictment also identified the grand jury's session as "March Term 2011/May Meeting."

Procedural history

Green and two codefendants were indicted in the Tift County Superior Court for malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, and other felonies. The indictment was returned in open court on May 17, 2011, but the clerk mistakenly recorded March 17, 2011 as the return date and later corrected it. After hearing the clerk's testimony, the trial court held the error was a correctable irregularity and overruled the special demurrer. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…