State v. Outen

714 S.E.2d 581, 289 Ga. 579, 2011 Fulton County D. Rep. 2077, 2011 Ga. LEXIS 505
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJune 27, 2011
DocketS10G1596
StatusPublished
Cited by51 cases

This text of 714 S.E.2d 581 (State v. Outen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Outen, 714 S.E.2d 581, 289 Ga. 579, 2011 Fulton County D. Rep. 2077, 2011 Ga. LEXIS 505 (Ga. 2011).

Opinion

HINES, Justice.

This Court granted a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals in State v. Outen, 304 Ga. App. 203 (695 SE2d 654) (2010), in which that Court affirmed the grant of a special demurrer when the language of the indictment tracked the statutory language that defined the offense of first degree vehicular homicide predicated on reckless driving. However, having determined that there was no appellate jurisdiction in the Court of Appeals, we vacate that Court’s judgment and remand the case to that Court for further proceedings.

After an automobile driven by David V Outen struck and killed Trina Heard, a grand jury returned a two-count indictment against Outen. Count 1 closely tracked the language of the reckless driving statute and charged that, on March 21, 2007, “without malice aforethought and while driving a motor vehicle on West Broad Street, [Outen] unlawfully cause [d] the death of Trina Heard through the violation of O.C.G.A. § 40-6-490, Reckless Driving,” by driving “said motor vehicle on said roadway in reckless disregard for the safety of persons and property.” See OCGA §§ 40-6-390 (a), 40-6-393 (a). Count 2 charged that, on March 21, 2007, Outen “did, *580 without an intention to do so and while driving a motor vehicle on West Broad Street, unlawfully cause the death of Trina Heard by violating O.C.G.A. § 40-6-48, Failure to Maintain Lane,” in that, while driving on a roadway “which was divided into more than two clearly marked lanes for traffic, [he] fail[ed] to drive as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and did move from such lane without having first ascertained that such movement could be made with safety.” See OCGA §§ 40-6-48, 40-6-393 (c).

Outen filed a special demurrer as to Count 1, “arguing that it provided insufficient detail to allow him to prepare his defense because it lacked any specific facts supporting the reckless driving allegation.” Outen, supra at 204. The trial court granted the motion, the State filed a notice of appeal from that order, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Id. However, doing so was error. Although no question of the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals was raised in that Court, it is incumbent upon the appellate courts of this State to inquire into their own jurisdiction, regardless of whether an issue of jurisdiction is raised by the parties. In the Interest of K. R. S., 284 Ga. 853 (1) (672 SE2d 622) (2009).

The ability of the State to appeal in a criminal case is governed by OCGA §§ 5-7-1 and 5-7-2. “ Tn OCGA § 5-7-1 (a), the General Assembly has set forth only a limited right of appeal for the State in criminal cases. (Cits.)’ [Cit.] If the State attempts an appeal outside the ambit of OCGA § 5-7-1 (a), the appellate courts do not have jurisdiction to entertain it. [Cit.]” State v. Evans, 282 Ga. 63, 64 (646 SE2d 77) (2007). Under OCGA § 5-7-1 (a) (1),

[a]n appeal may be taken by and on behalf of the State of Georgia from the superior courts, state courts, City Court of Atlanta, and juvenile courts and such other courts from which a direct appeal is authorized to the Court of Appeals of Georgia and the Supreme Court of Georgia in criminal cases and adjudication of delinquency cases in the following instances:
[f]rom an order, decision, or judgment setting aside or dismissing any indictment, accusation, or petition alleging that a child has committed a delinquent act or any count thereof....

And, OCGA § 5-7-2 requires that

[o]ther than from an order, decision, or judgment sustaining a motion to suppress evidence illegally seized, in any appeal under this chapter where the order, decision, or judgment is not final, it shall be necessary that the trial judge certify *581 within ten days of entry thereof that the order, decision, or judgment is of such importance to the case that an immediate review should be had.

The trial court’s order dismissing Count 1 of the indictment is not a final order; Count 2 remains in the trial court. Accordingly, by the plain terms of OCGA § 5-7-2, a certificate of immediate review was required.

The requirement of OCGA § 5-7-2 will not be bypassed. “OCGA § 5-7-1 et seq. must be construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the interests of defendants. State v. Ware, [282 Ga. 676, 678 (653 SE2d 21) (2007)]; State v. Martin, 278 Ga. 418, 419 (603 SE2d 249) (2004).” State v. Lynch, 286 Ga. 98, 103 (2) (686 SE2d 244) (2009). The State did not secure the required certificate, and the order granting the special demurrer as to Count 1 is thus not appealable; the State’s “ ‘attempted appeal is nugatory and does not activate . . . appellate jurisdiction . . . .’ [Cit.]” Ware, supra at 678.

We note that there are opinions issued by the Court of Appeals that state that when a trial court dismisses a single count of a multi-count indictment leaving the other counts pending, the order is “final” within the meaning of OCGA § 5-7-2. See, e.g., State v. Ramirez-Herrara, 306 Ga. App. 878, 879 (1) (703 SE2d 429) (2010); State v. Barrett, 215 Ga. App. 401, 402, n. 1 (451 SE2d 82) (1994). However, these opinions rely upon State v. Tuzman, 145 Ga. App. 481, 482 (1) (243 SE2d 675) (1978), which was wrongly decided. In Tuzman, 30 counts of a 41-count indictment were dismissed, and the State filed a notice of appeal to review that dismissal, despite the fact that 11 counts of the indictment remained pending in the trial court. Tuzman held that to apply OCGA § 5-7-2 when only a portion of a multi-count indictment is terminated would “reduce to a nullity the ‘any count thereof’ language of [OCGA § 5-7-1

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Nikolai Chea
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2026
John Brian Golden v. State
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2025
Esivue Kadiri v. State
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2025
State v. Daniel Dante Potoka
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2024
Garrison v. State
905 S.E.2d 629 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2024)
Don Cyprian Martin v. State
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2023
State v. Marty Dustin Whitman
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2023
State v. Rodney Scott Wood
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2023
State v. Grable Rhymes
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2023
State v. Charles E. Hatley
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2022
State v. Abby M. Hatley
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2022
State v. Hendried Green
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2022
State v. Don Cyprian Martin
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2021
State v. Dana Page Malick
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2021
State v. James Stewart
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2021
Seals v. State
860 S.E.2d 419 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2021)
State v. Wheeler
849 S.E.2d 401 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2020)
State v. Neel Dillip Patel
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2020
In the Interest of A.L., a Child
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2020
State v. Anthony Jaquez Butler
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2020

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
714 S.E.2d 581, 289 Ga. 579, 2011 Fulton County D. Rep. 2077, 2011 Ga. LEXIS 505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-outen-ga-2011.