☢ test - Í

Cole v. State, 334 Ga.App. 752, 780 S.E.2d 406 (November 19, 2015). Interlocutory appeal in prosecution for Medicaid fraud and theft by taking; trial court erred by denying special demurrer based on failure to specify dates of fraudulent transactions. Indictment alleged that defendant submitted numerous fraudulent Medicaid claims over three years, totaling almost $300,000. At hearing, State’s investigator testified that “Cole submitted the claims electronically, with each claim submitted for a specific date and a billing amount for that specific date. … White also agreed that he ‘used those specific dates to come up with a number, $297,831.39.’ White’s testimony suggests that the State could have identified, by date, each of the electronically filed claims that White had found to be acts of Medicaid fraud and theft by taking. The State did not present evidence showing that it could not more specifically identify the date of each criminal act. … Where a defendant is charged with committing a crime over a range of dates, and the State does not present evidence that it cannot identify the specific dates on which the crime was committed, we have generally found the indictment to be subject to a special demurrer.” Distinguishing Johnson v. State, 233 Ga.App. 450, 504 S.E.2d 290 (1998) (demurrer properly denied; indictment sufficiently alleged four fraudulent billings over three months). “In contrast to the appellants in Johnson, Cole is not apprised by the indictment of the claims that the State contends are fraudulent, leaving Cole uncertain of which of the thousands of claims she submitted to Medicaid over a more than three year period are pertinent to her defense.” Herring v. State, 334 Ga.App. 50, 778 S.E.2d 57 (September 28, 2015). Interlocutory appeal in prosecution for incest and related offenses. Trial court erred by denying special demurrer based on non-specific date of offenses alleged in indictment. Victim alleged that defendant had sex with her on numerous occasions, at three different residences where they lived during 2013 and 2014 but couldn’t remember any of the dates except the last one. The indictment therefore alleged date ranges for incest and other offenses “(1) incest [and other offenses] between January 11, 2013 and October 28, 2013; (2) incest [and other offenses] between October 28, 2013 and August 20, 2014; (3) incest [and other offenses] between August 20, 2014 and September 24, 2014.” “[I]f the State can show that the evidence does not permit it to allege a specific date, it may allege that the crime occurred between two specific dates. [Cit.] In response to a special demurrer, the State must present evidence to the trial court showing that it cannot narrow the date of the crime, and absent such a showing, an indictment failing to charge a specific date is imperfect and subject to special demurrer.” Having a specific date as to the last set of offenses, the State should have narrowed those allegations to the date alleged by victim. “[T]he victim’s allegations that Herring committed multiple acts of molestation and incest on unknown dates during that time period are irrelevant to the issue here. Herring is charged with only one count each of incest and child molestation during this date range. The evidence demonstrates that the State is able to identify a single date on which the conduct occurred, September 24, 2014, and was therefore able to narrow the date of those two crimes in the indictment. Thus, those counts of the indictment are subject to a special demurrer.” State v. Thomas, 331 Ga.App. 220, 770 S.E.2d 301 (March 17, 2015). In theft by taking prosecution, trial court properly granted motion to quash indictment. Indictment was defective for stating that defendant took funds of victim during a range of dates without specifying the manner of taking or the specific dates. At hearing, State contended that defendant made unauthorized charges to victim’s credit card, then deducted $2500 from victim’s bank account to cover the charges. “[T]he indictment fails to mention the manner of commission of the alleged thefts, that is, whether the thefts were separate instances of use of the credit card or whether the theft was the $2,500 taken from Lee's account to cover that balance. Conceivably, Thomas could later be charged with some other violation for the individual unauthorized uses of the card separately from the theft of the $2,500, or perhaps Thomas was not the individual using the card in all those instances.[fn] Moreover, th e State could easily ascertain the dates the alleged crimes occurred, and could have stated the manner in which the theft occurred and it was, therefore, appropriate for the trial court to grant the motion to quash.” Distinguishing cases where convictions were affirmed based on series of small thefts aggregated into felony amounts : Stack–Thorpe v. State, 270 Ga.App. 796, 798–799(1), 608 S.E.2d 289 (2004); Christian v. State, 288 Ga.App. 546, 548– 549(2), 654 S.E.2d 452 (2007); and Patterson v. State, 289 Ga.App. 663, 798–791(1), 658 S.E.2d 210 (2008). “[T]hose cases … are inapposite because they were post-conviction appeals addressing sufficiency of the evidence in which the indictment was not alleged to be infirm or in which this Court declined to review the alleged imperfect indictment after conviction.” O’Rourke v. State, 327 Ga.App. 628, 760 S.E.2d 636 (June 19, 2014). Child molestation convictions affirmed; trial court properly denied special demurrer challenging failure to specify date of offenses in indictment. While defendant was entitled to require State to present evidence showing its inability to be more specific, “the record indicates that O'Rourke agreed to have the trial court rule on his special demurrer based on the parties' respective briefs, without the necessity of an evidentiary hearing. ‘A party cannot participate and acquiesce in a trial court's procedure and then complain of it.’ (Citation omitted.) Davis v. Phoebe Putney Health Systems, Inc., 280 Ga.App. 505, 506(1) (634 S.E.2d 452) (2006);